(First: I’m sorry about the heavy snipping in your quotes, I tried to fit it all into one post, then gave up… But rest assured I wrote my replies before snipping, so I’m not trying to misrepresent you )
Given that his first statement was that “it leads more credence to the belief that the APA was wrong back in the 70s”, I’m having a hard time to see how he could not have meant to imply it.
Not currently treatable, no, however, as our understanding of the brain grows, it would become more and more likely that a treatment could be developed.
Quite possible, but when something is structural, it generally affects more than just one aspect of a personality. This is my main point here; to change the sexual orientation, you’d probably have to change too much of the person.
I’m not implying that it does say anything about theology, or have anything to do with theology at all. Observation of nature (scientific nature) easily concludes that the natural state of sexuality is geared towards (…)
Your argument here is teleological, and hence an exact example of this confusion of theology and science I’m speaking about.
Natural science don’t dabble in teleology. If something naturally occurs in nature with no external manipulation, then it is seen as natural.
That said, arguments from nature (as in inference from “is” to “ought”) are irrelevant and/or fallacious in ethics and moral theology. I’m just pointing out that countering people’s statements that homosexuality is “natural” with teleological argumentation is useless, since teleology isn’t even a concept in modern science, and most people use the word “nature” in its scientific meaning these days, or at least something close to it. Pointing out the “is to ought” fallacy works a lot better.
Agreed, all of these things -may- occur naturally(…) I don’t think we’d agree that those things are good things though? And, in all but one (…)fixes/cures are being actively sought
Some of the things I mentioned are neutral, some are bad. But again, cures are only being actively sought when a condition is detrimental to someone’s ability to function in life. Homosexuality simply doesn’t fulfill that requirement, unless you apply a generous amount of sophistry…
(…)However, it does cause impairment in that it prevent the natural ends of sex from being achieved (that is, homosexual acts are incapable of procreation, which is the natural end of sexuality).
From that stance, it is an impairment (…) [celibacy] simply chooses not to use the natural faculty at all.
By this logic, celibacy is also disordered. Celibacy is not simply the lack of exercise of one’s sexuality, but directing it towards other ends than sexual fulfillment.
And again, you’re mixing teleology, which a theological and philosophical concept, into medicine. Homosexuality is not an impairment according to the medical definition of the word, and hence it is not worthy of medical attention.
Nope, I just threw it in as a continuation of the thought I was having.
Again, no, you didn’t.
Okay, just needed to clarify
However, if you recognize that one is an impairment, it is necessary to recognize that the other is an impairment based on the “fact” that (in this theoretical scenario) they are both based on a faulty distribution of chemicals in the brain…
The problem here is that you assume that different brain structure equals faulty brain structure. From a purely scientific level, there is no reason to believe this.
But again, you do not maintain that on grounds of medicine, but on grounds of ideology. I’m saying ideology here on purpose - Catholic teaching nowhere states that homosexual attractions should be “treated”.
Autism is a different beast entirely, however, if a treatment existed(…)
The problem here is that autistic people do “function fully”. They just don’t function like everyone else.
And in a strictly natural discussion, it would make no sense at all to seek that correction, other than from a (grossly mistaken) eugenic perspective. It would effectively erase the person, since autism so drastically affects the entire cognitive functioning. This is why you’ll find incredibly few, if any, autistic individuals who would be willing to accept such a cure.
That said, I’m not against social training, treatment for sensory dysfunction/oversensitivity, treatments which would help non-verbal autists speak, and so on. But a cure which turns an autistic person into a neurotypical one? It would be morally despicable, and not least detrimental to society - too many of those people we call “geniuses” are really autistic.