Morals Paper:

"Student Asks: Natural or Pathological?" - By Harry Briley - 4/99

Background

A high school student from Virginia posed a question that strikes at the heart of homosexual bills. My response addresses world views in conflict and the nature of 'proofs'. This paper addresses the concept of the hypothesis in the realm of legislature debate. If we drop back to an emotional argument, while it does give us impetus and passion, both sides cloud the issues in the voter's mind as a result.

I will present three hypothesis. Two came from the high school student and one from the Letters to the Editor in the 'Valley Times' newspaper from a lesbian couple.

You will find much more information by accessing the hyperlinks on our web site. The folks at Exodus, Transforming Congregations, and Choices are three that I recommend first for doing legitimate research. They will point you to other resources.

Some Common Hypothesis Statements:

A. Homosexual behavior is pathological and therefore practitioners are unable to control.

B. Homosexual behavior is natural and therefore should not be limited.

C. We are a monogamous lesbian couple and therefore claims about promiscuous sex among homosexuals are 'false and lies ... full of hate'.

Reality Check 101

The student asked: "What is your explanation of homosexuality? Natural or Pathological?" My answers may be a surprise in that they are so faith-centric.

Answer: Neither. In the majority of the cases, it is choice of the will as all choices are. When you lust at pornography on the web, is it natural or pathological? Yes, you can find a lot pathological porn addicts. But there is something about porn (and homosexual acts) that grabs young people by the throat and says 'Pay attention to me!' How you respond ... is a choice. Do you give in or do you choose to reserve sexual behavior for marriage alone?

See the web pages for both Homosexuals Anonymous, recovery groups like Choices, and religious pages like Transforming Congregations. Our basic stance is that we make such a big deal about choices in all other areas of life such as drinking, smoking, gambling, studying homework, practicing for the big football game, that we choose to curb our baser appetite for a greater goal. The football player chooses to UNnaturally do hundreds of push-ups while the NATURAL thing to do is sleep in on the weekends.

Never in the history of civilizations, except in their declining years, did the argument of something being 'natural' was reason alone to engage in an activity. It is natural to speed on the freeway (especially when no gets hurt). Usually speeding is a totally victimless crime and nearly impossible to enforce uniformly. It is natural to eat. It is victimless. Yet, some wise guy figured that jogging was healthier than weighing 400 pounds. Jogging is not natural. Eating is natural. I know of no laws against eating and yet we willingly curb our appetite for many reasons. I will use this concept of self-policing our 'natural' behaviors in the next question.

The nature of a hypothesis in mathematical and philosophical logic.

The student asked "Can you help me prove or disprove that homosexuality is a natural state and not pathological."

Prove? Before you go about making any proof, you have to make a clear hypothesis, list the assumptions, set the system boundaries or conditions for your hypothesis, honestly accept valid material that is contrary to the politically correct position (counteract peer pressure), and then compare the evidence that counters the hypothesis. Finding examples for an hypothesis does NOT prove a hypothesis. Finding a single contradiction to the hypothesis disproves the hypothesis. This is why evolution can never be proven and so much evidence constantly changes the theory from year to year.

Many homosexual activists do not go to this trouble. It is far easier to go for the jugular vein and attack the scientific method on an emotional level, use half the evidence, conveniently ignore the problem of polling against open systems, and pass over the aspects that homosexual research into social mores are not done through impartial analysis. It is often tempting to do the same in reverse from our perspective. It is easier to be emotional.

My main point is that proving something requires rigorous use of the scientific method with peer reviews in juried articles, repeatable research, definable criteria in the research population, heavy restriction on subjective selection of that population by the sampling investigator, and so forth. All this work to prove what? The hypothesis is homosexual behavior is due to some aspect (genes, environment, biohazards in landfills, fetal alcoholism syndrome, or whatever).

Hypothesis A: Homosexual acts are pathological.

All you need to disprove a hypothesis that all homosexual acts are pathological (i.e. UNcontrollable) is a single example of a homosexually acting out person who suddenly ceases the behaviors for no other apparent reason than 'getting faith in Jesus'. 'Getting Jesus' does not guarantee the ability to cease the behavior, but only one example is needed to disprove the pathological hypothesis. The homosexuals say that such a person was never a homosexual in the first place.

Well, how many examples do you need until your are convinced? How many years must a person be actively doing homosexual acts in order to be called a homosexual? Would Floyd's (his real name) 30 years in the lifestyle count? Why do the homosexual activists suddenly label him as a non-homosexual simply because he 'got Jesus'? Would 800 former homosexuals be enough to convince you? If the homosexual activists dismiss so many as not being in the sample population, then on what terms do they consider themselves homosexual? It is purely at the emotional level that they discard even former lovers if that former lover says 'No'. They treat former homosexuals as political traitors. It is all about politics, not science nor proofs.

Hypothesis B: Homosexuality is natural.

As far as the Natural hypothesis, we challenge that easily enough in that everything that comes 'naturally' is also bounded by laws, social mores, and an inner sense of self-driven decision. Plutonium radiation is a natural phenomenon. Yet laws and social behavior is modified in the presence of mere dust particles of plutonium.

The Assumption of No Choice

In natural human behaviors, nobody and nothing forces a person to sexually act out upon another in a homosexual manner. To say differently is to argue that the person has no viable conscience and is perhaps sinisterly sub-human (that is, to argue that instinctual mating behavior patterns are solely in control). To say homosexuals 'have no choice' runs completely counter to their other arguments of 'freedom of choice', 'openess' and 'loving relationships'. These terms that they use are fraught with active choice.

The Condition of Learned Behaviors

The 'natural' sensory pleasure received is the result of a choice. To seek this 'high' again and again is Pavlonian, a learned behavior. Each separate acting out is a choice reinforced by previous choices. However, sheer repetition does not remove 'choice' from the equation despite how 'natural' it feels.

The Social Acceptance of Restricting Natural Behaviors

In an example used by Buster Soaries (Secretary of State for New Jersey, I believe): if you own a dog, you take great care to housebreak the dog. You set boundaries, set rules, and make it clear that the dog goes outside to do it's thing. Most civil families do not let their pets do what comes naturally. Pee-ing on the living room carpet is not socially acceptable for dogs kept in the home. If we see the benefit of curtailing dogs NATURAL behaviors, why are human beings somehow exempt.

On a different subject the honorable Soaries continued to make the analogy that we pass out condoms to high school students because we respect dogs more than we do our own students. The educational leaders in government have chosen to think of students as drugged zombies unable to curb their sexual appetite and as a result, treat students as lifeforms lower than a pack of loose dogs in heat. I know some high school students who think schools treat them like animals whether or not condoms are passed out.

The Assumption That We Are Not The State

In America, 'the people' as a whole sets the rules. Homosexual activists are not a put-upon class of society. They are powerful appointees and elected officials in the highest levels of government, the White House, and Congress. They are lawyers, accountants, money managers, and so forth. These activists have power and cash in abundance. They are changing the rules without regard to historical precedent of traditional civilizations nor religious calls to a supernatural level of living. Super (above) natural (nature) living is how homosexuals can suddenly cease the intense Pavlovian 'natural' cravings and weekly cruising for sex on Friday night.

Does this prove the Hypothesis?

The hypothesis that homosexual acts are natural does not mean that heterosexual acts are unnatural (although most homosexual practitioners claim an aversion, excepting bisexually-oriented people). In reverse, claiming that heterosexual acts are natural begs the issue whether sex within marriage is more natural than sex out of wedlock.. The hypothesis falls apart because the ownership of the 'natural' condition (sexual feelings) is outside the system boundary set by the hypothesis (homosexuals only). All these arguments are attributing a sensory 'high' condition to an end-state.

Mathematically, their argument can be stated: