posted
Because, although the True Way is not hard for one dedicated to Truth, the Way that is easy is not the True Way. Or less poetically, a direct appeal to the data is the correct way to settle a scientific dispute.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You said that they aren't choosing to use all the tools available to them. Why does that not count as trying enough?
Well for one thing in regards to experience all men are not created equal. They could be completely ignorant of facts or methods they would need to make such a change.
quote:You said that the tools were available. How is anything in the afterlife available to us now?
I am not sure what you mean. I believe that people can ultimately be happy in this life, even if some things go unresolved. I also believe that the life to come will have many differences from this current mortality.
quote:When I offered to give you examples of gay people who tried and failed to "unconfine" themselves, you positively refused to hear them, and said there was no point. So if you aren't going to hear the evidence, you of course aren't going to think there is any.
I was not refusing to hear your evidence, I have already conceded that such a thing does in fact take place. No further evidence is necessary.
quote:I have no problem beliving that people who deliberately ignore data that conflicts with their religious beliefs are not going to be able to draw sound conclusions. And doing so is foolish, and can lead to some very dysfunctional results.
Are you saying I am guilty of all those things, it seems that you are. I'm not sure why you waste your time discussing anything with me if that is what you really think.
quote:It's been 30 years since psychologists took homosexuality off the list of disorders. I refuse to believe that you didn't know that.
You are right, I already knew that. I do have alot of respect for the discipline of psychology, but I also believe it's a very difficult field to work within. People are difficult to study.
quote:What exactly is it that the scriptures "require" of gay people? And what exactly are the tools that are "available" to them that would allow them to do what you claim they are required to do?
Broadly stated, it is required that they live according to the truth that is meted out to them. That they like any other truth seeker are willing to live by that truth no matter how difficult it might be to accept.
quote: If you follow up with evidence showing that indeed, lots of people have been able to successfully use those tools to do as the scripture requires, that's be great too.
I will look into programs designed to rehabilitate homosexuals. In the past I have read of some that I found reprehensible. But it should be noted that it could also very well be that we do not yet know psychologically how to assist homosexuals in this manner.
There are many maladies that do not have a cure, and while cures for some will eventually be found, others continue to remain a mystery. It does not follow that if there is not some mass means to help homosexuals as a group, that therefore the real problem is that we continue to view homosexuality as wrong. I can submit that they may very well be the correct answer, but it is not the only possibility.
I would appreciate it if you can link to any individual studies that you are already aware of as that will give me a good place to start.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If nothing in the scriptures is impossible, then how can there not be a tool to 'help' the homosexuals? If that were true, then the prohibition ought to be relaxed until such a tool is found, or else the hypothesis of no impossibilities abandoned.
Edit: Also, you did not respond to my last post; perhaps it got lost in the masses of text? I reproduce it for your convenience:
quote:Belligerent? I am surprised you would use that adjective to describe me. Maybe it's the fact that emotions are difficult to convey in this medium but I assure you I am not angry. I was alittle annoyed that you phrased my position in terms you knew I would strongly disagree with.
I did not know anything of the kind. I remind you of my exact words:
quote:You now agree that your belief in the theology is an assumption, which your evidence does not justify.
I had the impression that we had just agreed that this is true, and restated it explicitly to check that we did in fact agree. Apparently I overestimated something you said. Are you now saying that your evidence does justify your assumption?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: I believe I responded to that statement with, "In order to agree with that I would have to reword it thus, "I now agree that my belief in theology includes assumptions, which my evidence does not necessarily justify."
quote: If nothing in the scriptures is impossible, then how can there not be a tool to 'help' the homosexuals? If that were true, then the prohibition ought to be relaxed until such a tool is found, or else the hypothesis of no impossibilities abandoned.
There might very well be a tool that we have not uncovered yet. It's not as if we tell cancer patients that they are allowed to be angry at God until a cure is found.
There may be a highly individualistic response to a homosexual. For one it might simply be that they are capable of embracing heterosexuality and stifling homosexuality, if they only seek to do it. For another it may be that the environment they were raised in coupled with their nature has already firmly grounded them in homosexuality beyond our normal ability to dissuade it, and it may be best that they remain celibate for the time being.
Furthermore it would be up to God to decide if any modification regarding church policy towards homosexuality is needed. Church policy regarding homosexuality has already seen some change.
edit: I'm not too happy with that post but I need to pick up my wife and I am not sure I'll have any more time today to hatrack around.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:KOM: I believe I responded to that statement with, "In order to agree with that I would have to reword it thus, "I now agree that my belief in theology includes assumptions, which my evidence does not necessarily justify."
Ah so, looks like I'm the one who missed a post. But still, I do not see the difference between your statement and mine. If your assumptions are not justified by evidence, what does justify them?
I'm dropping the homosexuality bit as I don't find it very interesting; I want to concentrate on the epistemology.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB] swbarnes2:
quote:You said that they aren't choosing to use all the tools available to them. Why does that not count as trying enough?
Well for one thing in regards to experience all men are not created equal. They could be completely ignorant of facts or methods they would need to make such a change.
So the people who went through 'conversion' programs and failed to become straight are ignorant of exactly what tools that would allow them to succeed?
Because if you can't name them, and demonstrate that they exist, then we are back to the start, where you believe because of your faith in things that no evidence shows exist, and that lots of evidence suggests don't exist.
quote:
quote:I have no problem beliving that people who deliberately ignore data that conflicts with their religious beliefs are not going to be able to draw sound conclusions. And doing so is foolish, and can lead to some very dysfunctional results.
Are you saying I am guilty of all those things, it seems that you are.
For goodnesss sake, yes. I don't know how amny times I can type the same thing, and have you still not understand. I've said it 5 times, and you never claim that I am mistating you.
You claim that it is possible for gay people, to change their orientation. I'm claiming it's not, and have a pile of "shells", as you call them, the unfortunate people who tried as hard as they could, and failed. I also have the consensus opinions of medical and psychologists, who agree that what you claim is possible is not.
The number of sucesses you can count that support your claim is pretty much zero, out of thousands and thousands who have tried. But you still believe that you are right, and I am wrong, because your religion tells you so, despite all the evidence that disproves it.
quote:I'm not sure why you waste your time discussing anything with me if that is what you really think.
Becuase as far as demonstrating that religiously-motivated conclusions are counter-factual and harmful, believing in gays becoming straight is like shooting fish in a barrel. And when you go on about how gay people are like people with mental illness and phsyical paralysis, that's just more and more...enlightening.
quote:
quote:It's been 30 years since psychologists took homosexuality off the list of disorders. I refuse to believe that you didn't know that.
You are right, I already knew that. I do have alot of respect for the discipline of psychology, but I also believe it's a very difficult field to work within. People are difficult to study.
This is your dodgy way of saying that you reject the conclusions, and accept the proclamations of your religious beliefs instead on this matter?
Why can't you just say so straightforwardly?
And what does this tell us about your "I'll listen to science", if you have your "studying people is hard" excuse at the ready whenever science tells you something you don't like?
quote:
quote:What exactly is it that the scriptures "require" of gay people? And what exactly are the tools that are "available" to them that would allow them to do what you claim they are required to do?
Broadly stated, it is required that they live according to the truth that is meted out to them. That they like any other truth seeker are willing to live by that truth no matter how difficult it might be to accept.
Don't be coy. What are you arguing is that truth with regard to how gay people should live their lives?
(Hint, you were on the track of your opinion when yuo were talking about disorders and paralysis and mental disorders. Stay with that, it's your honest opinion)
quote:There are many maladies that do not have a cure, and while cures for some will eventually be found, others continue to remain a mystery.
That's more like it. What are you saying is "required by scriptures" with regard to this "malady"?
Once again, the fact that expert scientists don't think it's a malady is totally ignored by you. Who claims to listen to science.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:What are you saying is "required by scriptures" with regard to this "malady"?
Once again, the fact that expert scientists don't think it's a malady is totally ignored by you. Who claims to listen to science.
What people define as "healthy" or "unhealthy" depends as much on subjective value judgments as it does on scientific data. There is only a thin veneer separating "healthy/unhealthy" from "good/bad" or "right/wrong". Of course someone with a different moral outlook on the world also has a different definition of mental "health". That shouldn't be scandalous, or even surprising.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'm curious what the criteria are, within the scientific community, for rulings like this. What defines something as mentally "healthy" or "unhealthy"?
Is it the ability to get along in Western society without serious impediment? If so, I imagine that the definition would change with society, and vary for smaller subcultures.
Is it about survival value, from an evolutionary standpoint? It's a more universal standard, but it's also less concrete and less well-understood. It's also more difficult to apply to non-competitive behaviors without opening a big can of worms Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The research on homosexuality is very clear" doesn't seem to leave much room for disagreement for someone like BlackBlade who claimed (1) that his view could be changed by science, and (2) that there isn't a scientific consensus on homosexuality.
When shown that (2) is not the case, BlackBlade responded that "people are difficult to study," implying that either the extant scientific evidence is insufficiently persuasive for him, or that (1) is in fact not the case.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2: I don't want to share with you what I am finding in my look at scientific research and homosexuality. I am convinced that no matter what I would find you would still be convinced that I am an moron and your enemy.
Everything I say is seen in a negative light to you. I am a Political Science major, one of the soft sciences. I love it and even I have to concede that when compared to say chemistry we polysci folk don't get to experiment much, rather we have to do a truckload of observing and talk about our observations rather than actually saying X causes Y.
I am responding to what you have already said, and then I am done until you actually care to help me work through this, rather then looking at me like I an enemy and that this world would be well rid of me.
quote:You claim that it is possible for gay people, to change their orientation. I'm claiming it's not, and have a pile of "shells", as you call them, the unfortunate people who tried as hard as they could, and failed. I also have the consensus opinions of medical and psychologists, who agree that what you claim is possible is not.
Then all I'd have to do is find a single person who by all accounts was a homosexual and was able to live a happy life in a heterosexual relationship. When you say nobody can change their orientation are you saying then that all those who are homosexual and yet happily live as heterosexuals already have that heterosexuality within them, they've just chosen to ignore their latent homosexuality? Or are you saying that those who say they have homosexual desires are all or nothing in those sentiments?
quote:This is your dodgy way of saying that you reject the conclusions, and accept the proclamations of your religious beliefs instead on this matter?
That's not a question, it's a statement. And no there is nothing dodgy about saying that in some noticeable ways, studying human behavior is much more difficult then studying the human body.
quote: Why can't you just say so straightforwardly?
I am being as straightforward as I know how. I qualify what I say because that is how I feel. There is precious little that I am absolutely certain without reservation about. It's unfortunate that I cannot share your certainty concerning homosexuality. It would be so easy for me to see you as somebody who shackles homosexuals down by saying they can't do something, that you are their enemy. But I don't because I believe you actually care about others, something I wish you could wrap your head around for me.
quote:Don't be coy. What are you arguing is that truth with regard to how gay people should live their lives?
This whole time I have never acted like I knew exactly what to do. I refuse to believe that I have actually given you the impression that I am not actually seeking for answers and that I know everything I believe there is to know about homosexuality. Please just stop.
quote:That's more like it. What are you saying is "required by scriptures" with regard to this "malady"?
I honestly do not know. The only thing I believe is that God has commanded that sexuality be kept within the bounds of marriage. Currently marriage is only permissible between committed males and females. Therefore currently homosexuals must not act on that impulse. I don't know what the proper course of action for a gay man or woman is in dealing with this problem. I do not possess it, and I am not responsible for another human being facing this dilemma. When I am, I believe the answers will be there for me if I am worthy of God's help.
---- Twinky:
quote:The research on homosexuality is very clear" doesn't seem to leave much room for disagreement for someone like BlackBlade who claimed (1) that his view could be changed by science, and (2) that there isn't a scientific consensus on homosexuality.
I said there is not much consensus on homosexuality, specifically stating that we don't even know what causes it. I am currently looking into just what the consensus is. You are welcome to help me in this effort.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you make your own definition of homosexuality "A type of lifestyle/behavior which is sinful, wrong, and unhealthy." Then you can pretend all you want that science might sway you, when in fact you know that it never will.
If you're unwilling to either accept that your definition is wrong, or at least be open to modifying it, then science can tell you day and night that the earth isn't the center of the universe and you can say, "Sorry, I'm going to believe what God tells me over what you say any day."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you claim that the perceived risk of the parent of three is less than that of the parent of one?
If the parent fears losing ANY child as much as he or she fears losing EVERY child -- which is, after all, quite likely -- there's no distinction to be made at all.
The claim was made that the perceived risk of a theist who risks his mortal life is less than the perceived risk of an atheist. I think that is nonsense.
Losing a child is losing a child. Having "spares" is only relevant to the degree of loss if we're talking about noble lineages. Losing (or risking) your life is risking your life. The existence of another life does not make the loss of this one any less -- not unless you believe the next to be merely a continuation of this one. Like a cat's, I suppose.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The existence of another life does not make the loss of this one any less -- not unless you believe the next to be merely a continuation of this one. Like a cat's, I suppose.
I don't see how you can honestly make that claim. If you lose something, but get another similar, perhaps even BETTER something, that's clearly better than losing something and getting nothing...FOREVER.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see how you can honestly make that claim. If you lose something, but get another similar, perhaps even BETTER something, that's clearly better than losing something and getting nothing...FOREVER.
So losing my beloved stuffed tiger I've had since I was a year old and getting a brand NEW stuffed tiger is measurably better than just losing my beloved stuffed tiger?
I disagree. The pain of forcibly losing something you care very much about is not significantly reduced just because you are paid for it.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So losing my beloved stuffed tiger I've had since I was a year old and getting a brand NEW stuffed tiger is measurably better than just losing my beloved stuffed tiger?
Isn't it? Bear in mind that, according to Mormon theology, the second beloved stuffed tiger is one that you're going to have forever, and is one that, moreover, is the best stuffed tiger ever. At the very least, you still have a stuffed tiger -- as compared to the person who has no tiger at all.
If I know that someone will buy me an Enzo with a lifetime warranty and unlimited free gas if I lose my car in an accident, I'm not going to shed anything but crocodile tears if my current one gets totaled.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference here is whether you actually care about the thing you are losing itself, or whether you only care about the function it serves for you.
With a son or daughter, you care about the child, as an individual. Losing your son and having him replaced by a new "better" child would not make you happy because you care about your son as a individual person, not for the functions he serves. Similarly, often with stuffed tigers, people are attached to them as individuals. They don't want a new, better tiger; they want THEIR stuffed tiger.
Cars, on the other hand, are more valued for their functionality. If you can replace one with another that does all the same things better, most people would be happy to do that. (There do exist some people, however, who are attached to their cars individually - and would rather keep the old car that they've come to know and love rather than get a new one.)
So, the analogy here is going to depend on what sort of object we are talking about. When we are talking about life itself, the question is: Do we care about our life only for the function it serves? Or do we care about our life because it is OUR life? Another way to put it is, would you trade your life with someone else's life, if that someone else has things easier and happier? Or would you keep your life just because its yours?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Actually, I'm curious what the criteria are, within the scientific community, for rulings like this. What defines something as mentally "healthy" or "unhealthy"?
Is it the ability to get along in Western society without serious impediment? If so, I imagine that the definition would change with society, and vary for smaller subcultures.
Is it about survival value, from an evolutionary standpoint? It's a more universal standard, but it's also less concrete and less well-understood. It's also more difficult to apply to non-competitive behaviors without opening a big can of worms
I've directly explained this to you specifically before. It's not any of those things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said there is not much consensus on homosexuality, specifically stating that we don't even know what causes it. I am currently looking into just what the consensus is.
I could be misremembering this, but didn't we already do this? I was pretty sure I went into this at pretty extended length with you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The existence of another life does not make the loss of this one any less -- not unless you believe the next to be merely a continuation of this one. Like a cat's, I suppose.
Do you believe our consciousness carries over to the afterlife?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you believe our consciousness carries over to the afterlife?
A very important question. The theistic afterlife concepts which I'm most familiar with are ones which involve some essence of ourselves, including aspects (or the entirety) of our personality and memories, continuing to exist.
Obviously a scenario where the afterlife is not presumed to include a continuation of consciousness would not necessarily be superior to oblivion, but then I'm not sure that "afterlife" is necessarily a good description of any scenario where consciousness is not preserved.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The existence of another life does not make the loss of this one any less -- not unless you believe the next to be merely a continuation of this one. Like a cat's, I suppose.
Do you believe our consciousness carries over to the afterlife?
To some degree. But definitely not the same way as in this life, as I mentioned a couple pages back.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've directly explained this to you specifically before. It's not any of those things.
Clearly, I've forgotten what it is you said, despite it having been explained "directly".
Other people:
Regarding the "is death less of a loss for religious people" question, there's another way to approach it. The fear of death is not a rational fear. It's something we have evolved, and we experience it regardless of whether we believe, intellectually, that the risk is worth taking, or that the loss is less severe than our fear would indicate.
Thus, if the question is one of bravery — ie, are atheists who risk or sacrifice their lives more brave than religious people who do the same? — then I'd still answer no. Overcoming the fear of death is the same difficult process, no matter what your esoteric beleifs are.
Another point is that faith != knowledge. People who experience faith act with trust that their beliefs are true. But the whole point of faith is that it is not 100% verifiable, even to the individual experiencing it. They act on it in the face of the possibility that their actions might not lead to the consequences they envision.
That grain of uncertainty, in my mind, makes the choice to risk one's life much more equivalent than some folks here have asserted. An atheist must steel themselves to overcome the fear of losing everything. A theist must do the same — their method is often to focus on their faith in the afterlife, but the same threat hangs over both, and it requires the same kind of emotional resolve to get through it, despite the use of different tools.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm impressed by your memory of old discussions Though in my defense, the paper you linked was primarily about sex addiction, which was one of the subjects of the thread. I read through it to find out what it asserted about that particular subject, and didn't necessarily record the criteria for their definition of a disorder once I verified that I approved of it.
So it seems that the paper you linked indicates that the criteria for defining a "disorder" (as opposed to a simple benign feature of someone's psychological makeup) are the following:
1. Distress. The symptoms are painful to the subject. OR: 2. Disability. The subject is impaired in his ability to carry out some important function. OR: 3. Risk. While the subject isn't experiencing either of the above criteria, his risk of incurring them is substantially increased.
It specifically says that deviation from cultural norms does not constitute a disorder.
That's a good answer. And you'll note that in my post above (which you were responding to), I was deliberately suggesting things that I did NOT believe were the criteria, in order to elicit a response detailing what the criteria were.
So ... cool. Thanks for letting me know the answer was there.
The one area, though, where I think the definition of a "disorder" among subcultures might have room for variance is in the definitions of "important functions" that can be impaired, according to criterion number 2.
If a particular culture defines a few extra functions that it expects its members to carry out, a psychological feature in an individual that is not clinically diagnosable as a disorder might nevertheless function as one in regards to their ability to fulfill those particular demands imposed on them by their culture (presuming that they wish to do so).
Psychologists are correct to avoid addressing such things as "disorders", since they are so dependent on an individual's subjective desire to pursue a particular way of life. Humans get to decide what they want out of life, and if they choose to pursue something (like a religion) that conflicts with some feature of their psychology, that choice itself is not a clinical problem, and it is up to the individual, not a doctor, to determine whether the cost is worth the pursuit.
(For some, the experience of faith makes the desire to pursue a particular religion so overwhelming that they take on quite a bit of pain and difficulty to do so, but that's quite possibly a separate discussion, and the point still stands that the decision to pursue a course of action is always a choice, whatever the psychological or experiential underpinnings for that choice.)
Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the fact that homosexuality is not (and, in my opinion, should not be) recognized as a disorder does not automatically invalidate BlackBlade's position, as from his perspective, within his culture, there are important functions that homosexuality does inhibit, and that conflict does need to be addressed, and not dismissed out of hand because of the official position of the psychological community.
In other words, I agree that cultural norms should not define clinical disorders. However, when an individual has chosen to pursue a particular culture, a feature that is not a clinical disorder may nevertheless need to be addressed in much the same way in order to resolve the conflict and satisfy the individual's desire to be a part of that culture.
Whether or not it is appropriate or realistic for homosexuality to be addressed in this way is still up for discussion. Thus far, it seems that in most cases, attempting to resolve this particular feature with this particular culture through suppression of the feature is futile, which causes many of us who belong to the culture to wonder what our other options are for resolving the conflict.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Overcoming the fear of death is the same...process
I have no idea why that would be.
If I am jumping off a fifty-foot diving board, I may feel some fear. If I am certain that there is no water in the pool, I will feel more -- and different -- fear.
I don't see how this can be disputed.
quote:Another point is that faith != knowledge. People who experience faith act with trust that their beliefs are true.
So you would agree that the amount of fear experienced is inversely related to one's certainty of a good afterlife?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I am jumping off a fifty-foot diving board, I may feel some fear. If I am certain that there is no water in the pool, I will feel more -- and different -- fear.
If you're blind, and deciding whether or not you believe there is water in the pool, rather than staring right at it (or the lack of it), the difference between the two is lessened significantly.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you would agree that the amount of fear experienced is inversely related to one's certainty of a good afterlife?
No, because of the other point I raised about the fear of death being an irrational, evolved part of our makeup, regardless of our philosophy.
None of the individual arguments I'm raising is certain to completely equalize the experience of an atheist and the experience of a theist. However, I think that they bring the two experiences close enough together that the difference between them is much smaller than the normal human variation in bravery.
IE, whether I fear death more than you do is more heavily influenced by my personality versus your personality than it is by the fact that I believe in an afterlife, and you do not.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: A very important question. The theistic afterlife concepts which I'm most familiar with are ones which involve some essence of ourselves, including aspects (or the entirety) of our personality and memories, continuing to exist.
Obviously a scenario where the afterlife is not presumed to include a continuation of consciousness would not necessarily be superior to oblivion, but then I'm not sure that "afterlife" is necessarily a good description of any scenario where consciousness is not preserved.
As a point of curiosity, IIRC reincarnation in the Bhuddist sense could be considered an afterlife in which there is no continuation of consciousness (at least not consciously and not immediately).
This of course depends on whether you think of "afterlife" as "after^1 life" or "after^n life" (i.e. whether the afterlife is whatever comes after this life or what comes after all n earthly lives).
A calculation for a person for this set of beliefs would presumably need to include a factor for the probability of whether one would get a better or worse life in the next life.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the fact that homosexuality is not (and, in my opinion, should not be) recognized as a disorder does not automatically invalidate BlackBlade's position, as from his perspective, within his culture, there are important functions that homosexuality does inhibit, and that conflict does need to be addressed, and not dismissed out of hand because of the official position of the psychological community.
In other words, I agree that cultural norms should not define clinical disorders. However, when an individual has chosen to pursue a particular culture, a feature that is not a clinical disorder may nevertheless need to be addressed in much the same way in order to resolve the conflict and satisfy the individual's desire to be a part of that culture.
Whether or not it is appropriate or realistic for homosexuality to be addressed in this way is still up for discussion. Thus far, it seems that in most cases, attempting to resolve this particular feature with this particular culture through suppression of the feature is futile, which causes many of us who belong to the culture to wonder what our other options are for resolving the conflict.
Within specific contexts, many, many behaviors that are not intrinsically disorders are still things that can or even should not be engaged in. You'll get no argument from me.
A gay person not wanting to engage in homosexual activity can be a perfectly healthy desire and them refraining is in no way intrinsically unhealthy.
This exchange, however, seems to be more concerned about the conversion homosexual people to heterosexual ones. There is a strong scientific consensus on this. Over 40 years of attempts to do this with highly motivated subjects has yielded no positive results that adhere to even a low standard of scientific rigor.
The APA's official position is that the ethical treatment for an ego-dystonic homosexual (one who really doesn't want to be gay) is getting them to accept that they are gay rather than trying to turn them straight for this reason and because the outcomes in terms of the mental and physical health of these people is so very much better.
The repartive therapy and ex-gay crowd have a long history of suicide, clandestine homosexual behavior (that is often the risky stuff), and a host of other psychological and physical unhealthinesses.
According to the science, counseling gay people that they "already have the tools" to change from gay to straight is a pretty terrible thing to do.
---
Don't know if I should add this or not, but Geoff, I really, really didn't expect you to actually look up our interaction or pull information from it. I am impressed that you did. It was not consistent with my conception of you based on our previous interactions and I'd like to say that I may have misjudged you. If so, I am sorry.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said there is not much consensus on homosexuality, specifically stating that we don't even know what causes it. I am currently looking into just what the consensus is.
I could be misremembering this, but didn't we already do this? I was pretty sure I went into this at pretty extended length with you.
I believe we talked about reform efforts, not scientific consensus. A few posts ago I hinted at our discussion by saying that I looked at a few reform programs that I ended up finding reprehensible. I'm currently looking at alot of stuff through google scholar and I'm probably going to extend to JSTOR.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought we'd talked about the scientific consensus of reform efforts, which is what I thought was being discussed here.
Are you talking about scientific consensus about homosexuality as a whole? It's a terribly complicated issue. You can't really talk about the scientific consensus on it. Some aspects are understood very well. Others are not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The APA's official position is that the ethical treatment for an ego-dystonic homosexual (one who really doesn't want to be gay) is getting them to accept that they are gay rather than trying to turn them straight for this reason and because the outcomes in terms of the mental and physical health of these people is so very much better.
I'm curious ... as a corollary to this, how are people with transgender inclinations handled? Is the subject's desire not to be their current gender treated as similar to an ego-dystonic homosexual's desire not to be gay?
quote:Don't know if I should add this or not, but Geoff, I really, really didn't expect you to actually look up our interaction or pull information from it. I am impressed that you did. It was not consistent with my conception of you based on our previous interactions and I'd like to say that I may have misjudged you. If so, I am sorry.
Ha ha. I like to surprise people
Seriously, though, I'm all too aware of my spotty memory, and I hate it when someone feels like I don't care about something they said just because I let it slip my mind. So when I can counteract such situations, I usually try to. (I'm also glad that I happened to pick the right search terms to find the thread ... if I hadn't, I'd still have no idea what you were talking about.)
In the thread I linked, you seemed to have the impression that I was generally disinterested in evidence and scholarship, and that I was only interested in backing up my own position. I hope I can dissuade you of that — the positions I take are sometimes controversial, but I'm much happier to face up to the places where my initial inclination flies in the face of scholarship, and adjust as needed, than plug my ears and pretend that such conflicts do not exist.
(I also hope you don't take the fact that I'm sometimes difficult to dissuade as evidence that I don't care about opposing evidence. I just think it's generally a bad idea to flip opinions without making the new input do some pretty hard work, first, to persuade me. Otherwise, my natural desire to please people would have my opinion flopping all over the place )
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The afterlife, at least in all religions I'm familiar with, is generally seen at the very least as a kind of reward for the faithful, if not explicitly as THE BEST THING EVER. Isn't that generally the point of the afterlife - that one gets a reward and final judgment for all the faith and good deeds done on earth, one gets to become more fulfilled, more complete, gets to hang out with God and their eternal family and loved ones?
It seems a contradiction to me to claim that the afterlife isn't something really, really good. Different, yes, but still awesome. It's one of the big selling points for religion.
So how is it even possible to imagine that the theist doesn't face a much, much less fearful possibility of death, both because of the promise of a super-sweet afterlife, and moreover, with the hope that supernatural intervention will save him when the bullets start flying.
If a person truly believes that his prayers will be answered, and that upon his death he will receive a heavenly reward, how is it even remotely possible that he would have as much to fear as someone who believes that he has just this short, physical life, and that no supernatural power is available to protect him?
I know for a fact that many cultures perform ceremonies in which they explicitly ask their supernatural powers for protection from swords and bullets before battle for the specific purpose of giving them courage.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But many theists also believe in a super bad unhappy place if you have not lived up to standards. So, if you aren't confident that you have met all the requirements, death could be a very, very bad thing. Whereas an atheist doesn't have to worry about burning in hell for all eternity.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: But many theists also believe in a super bad unhappy place if you have not lived up to standards. So, if you aren't confident that you have met all the requirements, death could be a very, very bad thing. Whereas an atheist doesn't have to worry about burning in hell for all eternity.
I have never met a theist who believed she was going to hell. Hell is for the other guys.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have met many LDS women who do not think that they will be worthy of the happiest place. Of course, LDS have the whole multilevels so they don't believe they are going to hell, just not the best heaven.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You can't really talk about the scientific consensus on it. Some aspects are understood very well. Others are not.
Not according to certain people in this thread, and you are a blind god nut who pretends to care about science if you disagree.
I'm actually glad you are here MrSquicky, as you have some experience in efforts to reform homosexuals. You mentioned one group that I agreed had a less than effective methods. Could you remind me of who they are, as well as any other groups or methods of reform that you are aware of? I would greatly appreciate it.
Mighty Cow: like scholerette mentioned, for LDS people the mere fact you believe in Christ and try to do good is not the key to a super awesome afterlife. I know quite a few protestants who also feel this way. I'll be honest even though it's risky to be so. If I was faced with death right now, I would not be ready. It would be terrifying for me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ... I have never met a theist who believed she was going to hell. Hell is for the other guys.
Not entirely true. In widely believed Chinese folk beliefs, many believe that *everyone* goes to hell. Thats why all those 'Hell money' (conspicuously in English too) bank notes that are burned for the recently departed are burned for loved ones.
As Wikipedia explains in a (slightly dubious bit ... but with the right spirit) section:
quote:A popular story says that the word hell was introduced to China by Christian missionaries, who preached that all non-Christian Chinese people would "go to hell" when they die, and through a classic case of misinterpretation, it was believed that the word "Hell" was the proper English term for the Chinese afterlife, and hence the word was adopted.
Furthermore, it is believed in Chinese mythology that all who die will automatically enter the underworld of Diyu to be judged before either being sent to heaven, to be punished in the underworld, or to be reincarnated. As such, the word "Hell" usually appears on these notes.
Believe me, since this was probably the first place where I came across the word 'Hell', it confused the heck out of me when I reached grade school.
Edit to add: There's a pretty good gallery of images of the things here with a pretty good sampling of ones with English printing http://www.bigwhiteguy.com/baskets/hell.php and may specially appreciate this one linkPosts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ... I have never met a theist who believed she was going to hell. Hell is for the other guys.
Not entirely true. In widely believed Chinese folk beliefs, many believe that *everyone* goes to hell. Thats why all those 'Hell money' (conspicuously in English too) bank notes that are burned for the recently departed are burned for loved ones.
As Wikipedia explains in a (slightly dubious bit ... but with the right spirit) section:
quote:A popular story says that the word hell was introduced to China by Christian missionaries, who preached that all non-Christian Chinese people would "go to hell" when they die, and through a classic case of misinterpretation, it was believed that the word "Hell" was the proper English term for the Chinese afterlife, and hence the word was adopted.
Furthermore, it is believed in Chinese mythology that all who die will automatically enter the underworld of Diyu to be judged before either being sent to heaven, to be punished in the underworld, or to be reincarnated. As such, the word "Hell" usually appears on these notes.
Believe me, since this was probably the first place where I came across the word 'Hell', it confused the heck out of me when I reached grade school.
That's very interesting Mucus. It illuminates my understanding on something that happened awhile ago. I was talking to my brother recently back from his mission at the time and he talked about people in Taiwan burning their, "hell money" and I remember saying, "What are you talking about, it isn't called hell money!"
But I guess in away it could.
edit: That reminds me of those museums that have depiction of what is done to you in order to atone for specific sins. Wax sculptures and paintings of people being sawn in half or hung by skewers and being prodded by red hot pokers. It's why I remember laughing when I read Wild Swans and Jung Chang's twice married grandmother who had taken her to such a museum scurried her past the depiction of a woman being drawn in half by her two husbands fighting over her.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't that generally the point of the afterlife - that one gets a reward and final judgment for all the faith and good deeds done on earth, one gets to become more fulfilled, more complete, gets to hang out with God and their eternal family and loved ones?
I don't think, at least in my religion, it would not be accurate to call it a reward. It's more of a gift than a reward. It's along the lines of the prodigal son story. You could have a rotten life and reject God too, yet if you honestly asked for forgiveness at the last minute you'd be forgiven. You just need to accept the gift.
Living a good life and having faith is not so much done to receive a heavenly reward as it is done for its own sake.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just seems like one of those "How you see the problem, is the problem" situations.
From the people who brought you "left-handedness is the devil" comes a new trait that can be corrected given enough slaps with a yardstick and the right tools.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If you make your own definition of homosexuality "A type of lifestyle/behavior which is sinful, wrong, and unhealthy." Then you can pretend all you want that science might sway you, when in fact you know that it never will.
If you're unwilling to either accept that your definition is wrong, or at least be open to modifying it, then science can tell you day and night that the earth isn't the center of the universe and you can say, "Sorry, I'm going to believe what God tells me over what you say any day."
BB, I can tell you I was touched by God. Right after I accepted myself, I felt the most divine peace settle over my countenance, a peace of such magnitude I have never felt before. And you know what it said? "It's OK."
It felt like putting on a suit that fit me perfectly that was there all my life, I just never wore it.
So who's feelings of God are the truth? The ones that say it's wrong, or the one's that say it's ok?
It shouldn't matter, because nobody KNOWS much for sure of anything, but because of "belief" we have 30 page long forum threads debating the validity of our fellow humans experience of life.
Isn't that what most religions profess? This is the way, and all those other ways are wrong?
And when called upon for their crimes against humanity, all that is offered is the religious equivalent of the Nuremberg defense, and if we're lucky it's wrapped in a bit of the science of the times.
But like you BlackBlade, I and others, are not responsible for what, from the outside, appears to be a dilemma for religions and you. But if your mission carried you to our door, I can say that you would not be met with lambasting. Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your subjective feelings are not evidence of anything external to your brain.
The similar experiences which convey mutually exclusive truths are evidence that at least some and perhaps all such experiences are misinterpreted.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Neither. Your subjective feelings are not evidence of anything external to your brain.
That's an assumption I don't agree with. When I feel cold, it's usually pretty good evidence that the air temperature is lower than usual. It may be subjective, but it's accurate.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:BB, I can tell you I was touched by God. Right after I accepted myself, I felt the most divine peace settle over my countenance, a peace of such magnitude I have never felt before. And you know what it said? "It's OK."
It felt like putting on a suit that fit me perfectly that was there all my life, I just never wore it.
I like that way of saying it alot.
quote: So who's feelings of God are the truth? The ones that say it's wrong, or the one's that say it's ok?
Perhaps it is right that you first accept that part of yourself. I wouldn't presume to say your feelings are wrong.
quote: It shouldn't matter, because nobody KNOWS much for sure of anything, but because of "belief" we have 30 page long forum threads debating the validity of our fellow humans experience of life.
I agree, I don't think my experiences are very applicable to anyone but myself.
quote: Isn't that what most religions profess? This is the way, and all those other ways are wrong?
I see it this way, "This way is the best we've got and is functional, all other ways approach it in correctness." There is plenty that could be improved upon in Mormonism, I believe that the reason it isn't perfect is because we aren't ready even though we profess to want all the knowledge God can grant us.
quote: And when called upon for their crimes against humanity, all that is offered is the religious equivalent of the Nuremberg defense, and if we're lucky it's wrapped in a bit of the science of the times.
Could you be so kind as to elaborate on this? Do you feel those who voted for Proposition 8 committed a crime against humanity from which there is permanent damage?
quote: But like you BlackBlade, I and others, are not responsible for what, from the outside, appears to be a dilemma for religions and you. But if your mission carried you to our door, I can say that you would not be met with lambasting.
I really appreciate that. I hope that if you do come across missionaries that if they come across as kinda strong or even insulting, that you realize they are young men and women, who are trying to learn how to be good representatives of Christ. We screw up alot in that effort.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There is plenty that could be improved upon in Mormonism, I believe that the reason it isn't perfect is because we aren't ready even though we profess to want all the knowledge God can grant us.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There is plenty that could be improved upon in Mormonism, I believe that the reason it isn't perfect is because we aren't ready even though we profess to want all the knowledge God can grant us.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Losing (or risking) your life is risking your life. The existence of another life does not make the loss of this one any less -- not unless you believe the next to be merely a continuation of this one. Like a cat's, I suppose.
