Posted on 12/20/2010 5:27:57 AM PST by Kaslin
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.