Posted on 12/20/2010 5:27:57 AM PST by Kaslin
Over the course of the last few weeks, I’ve 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 Keeton’s 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 one’s 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.
I'm interpreting them as conduct being actions, and orientation being desires.
Sex isn't a powerful force for some, but I bet that many who were told "you can't have sex for your whole life except with those you don't find any attraction to" would find it very difficult to follow. And that's what's being told to homosexuals who might be that way from birth.
Does that mean that they have no control over what they do? No...but if a person's underlying sexual desires are suppressed, I'm sure there are some effects to be addressed in counseling. For a counselor not to have exposure to that is to mean she has an incomplete understanding of those who might seek her professional services.
I’m talking about the free will to act or not act appropriately. If you’re defending homosexuality because they can’t help feeling desire for someone of the same sex, then you might as well defend thieves, liars, murderers and pretty much everyone else. Everyone has unhealthy desires, but responsible, mature people choose to restrain themselves. Plus, it’s quite possible to alter one’s thoughts over time.
The mind is not set in stone. Scripture is actually an excellent guide here if people will only follow it. Sin doesn’t arise out of nowhere. It starts as a stray thought, a momentary temptation, and grows into strong desire if given a chance to root. A person can nip unhealthy thoughts (temptations) in the bud, so that they don’t rise to the point of sin. Unfortunately, there is no hope for a homosexual who does not think there is anything wrong with homosexuality, because they cannot then repent. They are damned by their own free choice.
Homosexuals really aren’t all that different from other sinners. One can either blame one’s problems on someone or something else, refuse to believe one has a problem in the first place, or accept responsibility and try to fix it.
Your analogy is wrong. Mathematics can be proven. Free will or lac of is a philosophical idea. They are trying to force her to accept a catechism.
[...] accept responsibility and try to fix it.
How, if all of the counselors refuse to gain an understanding of the topic?
The best answer for a counselor to give such a client (whose sexual desires are being repressed—oh such a tough situation in today’s world when according to TV a human is supposed to be akin to a guppy) is this: “God knows your struggle and your pain. It is best to remain single and devote yourself to God’s work, but if you are worried about committing sexual sin, pray and God will find you a wife (or husband as the case may be) but you will have trouble in that relationship.” All Biblical.
Watch the You Tubes of Bishop Sheen. At the end of each of our lives either Satan will be there to claim you or Jesus will be there to you; “Mine.” It is very riveting.
So basically, there is no secular.
If you read through or listen to the New Testament, time and time again, the prohibition of sexual sin is repeated. It is not enough to be kind and generous and continue to sin sexually. A person must do it all.
So Gondring, I do not know what your deal is, only that your ideas are very fluid, shall I say. Further study is what I recommend.
Expose her to it. Not force her to accept it, from what I read.
Sorry I can’t explain now, as I’ve evidently not explained my point well. And please read my comments in reference to this specific story...not homosexuality in general. And I’m not saying homosexuality is Biblical, nor that there’s no free will to avoid certain behaviors.
I would say that most homosexuals are made that way after birth, perhaps through some trauma (molestation). In these cases, counseling is certainly indicated. Many cases involving cured homosexuals are known.
However, there may be some cases of people being born homosexual, perhaps through the effects of hormones in the womb. Perhaps counseling cannot help these people to change. Nevertheless, I would expect them to control their behavior. I do believe that humans have free will and that those who engage in improper behavior (and we all do) need to recognize that "My behavior was wrong".
It is my belief that our society discourages the idea that homosexuality is wrong and that, today, most homosexuals simply do not recognize that they ought to try to not live that lifestyle. This goes for those who are "born that way" or those who were not. Acting upon the desires is always a choice, and if society doesn't tell then it is a bad choice, then society is not helping them.
Rational beings can control their behavior: imperfectly at first, yet they can choose long-term straategies to achieve more and responsible and intelligent control.
Rational beings can influence their own feelings and reactions to bring them into harmony with their beliefs and values: yes, imperfectly at first, yet they can take steps over time to achieve deeper and broader harmony.
All of this is certainly limited and modified by one's genome, one's prenatal hormonal influences, one's early childhood development, environmental factors, altereed brain physiology due to traumas, and all the rest. But the will to modify one's life over time, the discipline to understand one's past influences, and the intelligence to shape a realistic strategyof self-determination, is part of our endowment as human beings.
These are axioms about a human person's nature as a rational being. These axioms are found in Christianity, but also in secular and humanist fields such as "education" and "counseling," which necessarily assume that people have some degree of power to understand their history and shape their destiny. If this were not so, why bother with "counseling" at all?
If it were actually true that homosexuals in particular, or people in general, are incapable to modifying their own attitudes and behavior, there would be no point in having a "re-education program", no point in having counseling programs, and no point in having Augusta State University.
Nicely said.
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.
I read that there is no gene or predisposition associated with homosexuality.
As to the first premise, it seems that boys (and girls) grow up more comfortable with friends of the same sex. This includes their sexual awakening, discovery, and talk about the pleasure associated with genitalia, and curiosity about the opposite sex. The male and female genitalia are made for union. About 1% of the boys never make the adjustment to the opposite sex. Instead, they focus on the intense pleasure associated with their own genitalia and their own sex. This obsession becomes their primary focus in life.
I do not know where the confusion and anxiety come from; the natural law is union between a man and a woman. Perhaps the confusion and anxiety occur because the people involved know deep down that their focus on themselves sexually is unnatural and perverted, especially if they include another person of the same sex. Given a circle and a cylinder, 99% of the people will figure out how to combine them. Maybe 1% will become obsessed with two circles or two cylinders, forever attempting to combine like and like, and forever frustrated, confused, and anxious.
This does not address the mental and physical risks to health and well being, shorter life span, and a long list of diseases including AIDS, that these misguided men and women face. Maybe that is another source of confusion and anxiety, IMO.
“Acting upon the desires is always a choice, and if society doesn’t tell then it is a bad choice, then society is not helping them.”
People all over refuse to do right. It isn’t just homosexuals. Illegal aliens, for example, refuse to accept they are wrong for coming here illegally. The circumstances are beyond their control, they deserve to come here, there shouldn’t be any borders, they are only doing the work that Americans won’t do. The excuses never stop. No one in this day and age is ever responsible for their own actions. It’s always somebody else’s fault.
I assume that means that it could cause changes in brain chemistry but that it could also NOT cause changes in brain chemistry which lead 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?
Regardless, if an event can cause a reaction that changes brain chemistry can't future events change brain chemistry also? Cannot sound reasoning which puts that event into prospective with other values also change brain chemistry? If the change requires a shot of adrenaline, as happened the first time, then that also can be emotionally induced. Is a change in brain chemistry a one-time thing?
As with most things, Scripture speaks to this issue. Forgiving the perp often negates the harm. Putting ones life completely in God's hands will also do the trick. Does that change brain chemistry?
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. Years ago I read B.F. Skinner's book Beyond Freedom and Dignity which espouses that theory. If true, why try to achieve anything? Why punish people for anything? Why give kids grades? Why keep score in games? 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 agree with Mike Adams.
Mark for later reading.
Well written and to the heart of the matter!
Christianity reveals far more about the nature of man than the drivel that passes for modern thought. Nowadays they don’t tell people to resist their sinful nature. They tell them to embrace it! Then they blame US for making homosexuals feel bad. They say the world would be a better place if only we’d stop with the sin talk.
Even non-Christians once understood the concept of self discipline and the need to restrain unhealthy impulses. So what if someone catches AIDS so long as they’re true to themselves? Don’t worry, they say. Just put a condom on it (never mentioning that maybe the activity itself should be avoided). Bizarre.
bump that...
As I suspected, you did not read well.
According to state officials, the principal “problem” was Keeton’s 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.
My other suspicion is that you know you are wrong but refuse to admit it.
As a young man with a strong sexual drive I told all my male friends and relatives that they could trust me with their money and other property, they could trust me to tell the truth but they should never trust me with their women. The fact that I am still alive testifies to my ability to refrain from acting on those desires. :-)
That form of “re-education” is borrowed from the Reds who got it from the Inquisition. She has already been exposed to the fake-science idea of gay at birth, because we all have, it’s everywhere. They aren’t trying to inform her; their mission is to subjugate her and break her if she won’t knuckle under.
If it were true that gays can't control their sexual behavior, then not only shouldn't they be in the military, they shouldn't be allowed out of the house without restraints.
But that's the absurdity of this whole rigged-up tricked-out argument. It's the "bigoted" "cultural conservatives" who stand alone in saying that gays have the same dignity, rights, and responsibilities as any other beings who possess intellect and will.
Controversial? At the University level, apparently.
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.