Posted on 12/20/2010 5:27:57 AM PST by Kaslin
Over the course of the last few weeks, Ive received numerous well-reasoned emails asking me to explain my differences with radio talk show host Neal Boortz at least as they pertain to an ongoing controversy involving Augusta State University student Jennifer Keeton. Insofar as our present differences arise from more fundamental differences regarding human imperfection and personal redemption I am pleased to elaborate.
For those not aware, Keeton was threatened with expulsion from Augusta State University for refusing to submit to a re-education program run by state-employed university officials. The re-education program was not targeted towards the manner in which Keeton had articulated certain ideas (including private conversations outside of class with fellow students). Instead, it was focused upon the substance of those ideas.
According to state officials, the principal problem was Keetons assertion that free will plays a role in homosexual conduct. Because she is a counseling major the state was concerned that, upon graduation, she might incorporate those views into her private professional practice. The solution mandated by the government was forced abandonment of her belief in free will. This was stated as a condition of remaining in the state-funded university program.
Neal Boortz position on the matter was succinctly summarized on his privately owned website back in early August. His support for the government reeducation program appeared then, as it does now, to be based upon two premises the first of which I believe to be accurate, the second of which I believe to be deeply flawed.
The first premise is that feelings of homosexuality, when first experienced by a young person, tend to be accompanied by rather intense feelings of confusion and anxiety as does the decision to seek counseling regarding ones sexuality. In this regard, Boortz has characterized the situation accurately.
The second premise is that hearing a counselor articulate the view that the patient has some degree of control over his sexuality would heighten, rather than attenuate, his feelings of confusion and anxiety. In this regard, Boortz has characterized the situation inaccurately.
It is unclear how Boortz arrives at the conclusion that someone would find the phrase You can change to be more traumatic than the phrase You cannot change. Human beings have always been comforted by the idea that they have some control over their fate. To suggest that homosexuals are somehow emotionally traumatized by ideas that are found comforting by others is to suggest a high degree of emotional volatility. The idea is not only condescending but lacks any basis in reality.
The idea that homosexual conduct is fully under the control of genetics has been refuted. If sexual orientation is fully genetically determined, identical twins will always have the same sexual orientation. If one is gay, the other identical twin will always be gay. If one is straight, the other identical twin will always be straight. Since this is not always the case, other factors are involved. This situation cannot be as simple as Boortz imagines it to be.
The State of Georgia is attempting to do no less than force a student to articulate a position that has been empirically falsified; namely, that the genetic influence upon homosexuality is so complete as to nullify free will. Their motivation is predicated upon a second falsehood; namely, that the first falsehood promotes self-esteem.
To date, too much has been made of the fact that the Boortz position is at odds with his professed libertarianism. Not enough has been made of the fact that his position is at odds with his professed Christianity.
Put simply, the Boortz position fails to recognize the distinction between temptation and sin. It also fails to distinguish between living an imperfect life and living a life ruled by imperfection. Those who may have given in to temptations to engage in homosexual conduct are not genetically resigned to the full indulgence of the homosexual lifestyle.
Ideas have consequences. The ideas we express have specific consequences in the course of human history. They may either produce life or they may produce death among those who hear them. In that sense, this case is not just about liberty for one individual. It is about hope for an entire generation.
Jesus did not come into the world to establish government programs that teach people there is nothing wrong with them and that they lack the ability to change. He came into this world to save sinners. But His offer is available only to those willing to acknowledge their sin and willing to change. And He gives us the power to change even when talk show hosts tell us we cannot.
We live in a world that hates God so much so that it nailed Him to a cross. But Hope was resurrected and is there for every man today. And that is our greatest source of comfort in a world that preaches hopelessness.
Although a few fall short, I would refer to Catholic priest and nuns to buttress your argument.
Interesting. So, you believe that homos have no more hope of changing than pedophiles?
Actually, I read well. You cited Dr. Adams' article, not the actual documents from the school, Miss Keeton, or Judge Hall.
Dr. Adams bears false witness...the school did not mandate a change in her beliefs. This was something pointed out by the judge.
It's only the second part of the Remediation Plan that's in question. Let's look at some of the words from Judge Hall...
"[...] Plaintiff has not provided evidence that the ASU faculty imposed the May 27, 2010 [sic] Remediation Plan because the faculty personally disagree with Plaintiff's expressed personal views, or that the goal of the Plan itself was to alter any of the Plaintiff's personally held views, sufficient to establish that she is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of her claim. To the contrary, the record suggests, and the testimony at the hearing bolsters, that the Plan was imposed because Plaintiff exhibited an inability to counsel in a professionally ethical manner--that is, an inability to resist imposing her moral viewpoint on counselees--in violation of the ACA Code of Ethics, which is part of the ASU counseling program curriculum.Over and over, the judge points out that the program was simply requiring her to adhere to the ethical standards set for the program.
Furthermore, Plaintiff's refusal to participate in the Plan, which requires her to read counseling literature geared toward counseling GLBTQ persons and attend workshops geared toward that same end, demonstrates Plaintiff's unwillingness to complete curricular requirements. The faculty made clear in various meetings with Plaintiff and through correspondence that it was not Plaintiff's personal beliefs that were their concern, but rather only her inability to separate her personal beliefs in the judgment-free zone of a professional counseling situation, as mandated by the ethical standards incorporated into ASU's curriculum.
Remember that her complaint even quotes the professors as stating she doesn't have to change her beliefs, but just has to act in accordance with the ACA Code of Ethics.
The question is, should the ASU program follow the ACA ethical standards?
Before answering no, consider what other possibilities exist if we suggest that professionals should allow their personal beliefs to overrule their professional setting with vulnerable clients. I personally don't want to go to a massage therapist and find that he believes in "sexual healing"...I expect him to maintain professional standards. I don't expect a medical school to admit and graduate students who care only about conducting Mengelean experiments, and therefore don't want to follow the professional standards (I recognize that a version of the Hippocratic Oath is not mandatory, but there are still standards required to complete the curriculum).
I'm not claiming that the brain chemistry is what leads to PTSD.
Why would it cause changes in some but not others? Could it be the totality of the experience including previously learned values and attitudes?
Maybe. There are also differences in cortisol level curves for men and women, so it could be tied to sex hormones or any number of things, far too numerous to list. As I said, Dr. Adams is ignoring so many factors.
Regardless, if an event can cause a reaction that changes brain chemistry can't future events change brain chemistry also?
I can't do a whole literature review for you--I just provided one example taken from many from a single researcher (Douglas Bremner). The brain structure is also different...Hippocampus research might be particularly relevant to this conversation, in light of the hippocampus differences between homosexual and heterosexual men first reported nearly 20 years ago.
Of course, research is ongoing. Current trials include work to look at neural circuits and potential neurogeneration to help restore structure and function.
I think that's important, because until we can figure out a way to regress people and let their brains develop again, the answer to your question is "no"...just like you can't just change the other things that developed as you became and adult just by wishing them to change.
Bottom line, I disagree with the existentialists theory that we are unchangeable, that we are what we are and that is the end of it.
That's a straw man, as nobody is claiming that.
If the desire is to take meaning from life then it is a good theory. It is all part of the long term goal of acclimating the masses to state control by killing the spirit.
I'm a scientist.* I am looking for what we can learn of objective truth (and I use that non-rigorously--I'm not looking for a philosophical discussion of the meaning of fact, truth, etc.). It's not a religion; I don't have a preconceived idea to which I must fit observations--I believe yldstrk referred to "fitting observations to theories" rather than the reverse as "fluid".
If you are afraid that the truth leads to state control, then I'd respectfully suggest your grasp of the truth is off-base. I am against state control precisely because I believe objective truth shows it to be a negative concept.
Are you a John Cleese fan?
John Cleese - The Scientists - 2008
*Note, I am not a psychiatrist and I have no connection with Emory University or any of the research I cited herein.
Is it possible that the chicken or egg argument enters here? Don't areas of the brain develop as we use them? In fact, that could be the center of the nature or nurture argument in this case.
That's a straw man, as nobody is claiming that.
It was not intended as such since existentialist were discussed in the article.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Mike Adams not only hits this one out of the park, but it circled the globe. Excellent!!!!
That brain argument was dicounted years ago. Odd that you’re pushing an wholely discredited (even by the original researcher) pro-homosexual agenda argument. Hmm.
Well said.
Like most pedophiles, many homosexuals comment that they were molested as children. Neither behavior is something to be celebrated or admired; both are destructive.
Perhaps Gondring missed this thread posted by Jim Rob...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2644629/posts
OR no basis for Augusta State University to suggest they can change the behavior of Jennifer Keeton by intimidating or coercing her into submission.
We either have free will, or we are nothing but animals. The two positions are comprehensive and mutually exclusive.
That doesn’t mean that the temptations that we are subject to are exactly the same for all of us.
You are totally wrong about that theory being discredited. I recently saw a documentary on super memories that suggested the chicken or egg argument is still a valid consideration. As far as your innuendo, I am in Cedar Park, TX. If you are anywhere close let's meet and discuss this further. I think your mind will be thoroughly changed. I greatly resent the implication.
I was replying really to Gondring beacuse he was the one who used the example of the “gay” researcher and brain differences, which did indeed turn out not to be significant in any way. I wasn’t making the claim that brains in general can’t change, or show differences in any way, shape or form. Just that there is no such thing as a “homosexual brain” that looks different than a “normal brain”.
Calm down, good for your blood pressure!
Since my name was first and you were replying to my post I naturally thought the comment was directed to me. And you are right, it did raise my blood pressure. :-)
I apologize - I’ve got at least a dozen windows open (working at home at the same time) and hadn’t read the entire thread, just saw the brain thing mentioned and replied to your comment that had the other replies quoted!
My fault really.
Merry Christmas!
Evidently, you can’t read my posts.
Huh? I'm not pushing any pro-homosexual agenda argument.
Which one are you mistakenly claiming I am pushing?
When the initial hippocampus study was published (what was it, 6 cadavers of homosexuals, by autopsy, not MRI? The rebuttal to it that I wrote* was published the week it came out, but you must forgive me...it was perhaps two decades ago. If that's the one to which you're referrng, I do hope you give me credit for being perhaps the first in print to discredit it. :-)
*The claim was that because they observed different hippocampus volumes in the cadavers of homosexuals, homosexuality must be in-born...something I tore apart on not just study-design grounds (were the results even valid!), but on the idea that environment could have modified hippocampus volume--so even if the results were valid, the conclusion wasn't.
Finally, I pointed out that many lesbians insist that they chose homosexuality. (I saw a great argument between male and female homosexual activists over this--what a hoot!) I believe to this day that research conflating male homosexuality and female homosexuality might obscure some important factors.
Exactly.
Well, let's be clear on the definition of free will...as I am not trying to get into a religious predestination discussion here.
I am making the assumption here that you will agree that God has given Man a few moral laws, including a prohibition against homosexual acts.
So, on that assumption, and realizing that all mankind, including even Jesus, are subject to temptation, Free Will is the ability to act on those temptations and sin, or reject them.
So even if homosexual lusts are genetic, or occur during the development of the fetus, or in events happening in early childhood, we have no more excuse for giving in than we do for any other type of fornication, also forbidden by God to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.
Now, there are other ways to argue against homosexual practices, but Free Will is a fundamental religious concept, so that is how I choose to argue it.
The same argument would apply to any other sin, or moral decision. We don't have to give into our dark desires. We may not be able to keep from having them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.