PDA

View Full Version : Homosexuality: Genetically caused?



Swedish
March 2nd, 2004, 11:06 PM
Title says it all. Discuss.

Withnail
March 2nd, 2004, 11:11 PM
Yeah.
Left-handedness. Genetically caused?
Discuss.

Swedish
March 2nd, 2004, 11:47 PM
Since when was left-handedness was considered morally wrong by religions, condemned in the past, and now condemns those who oppose it? We are on a different level here. Sure, Homosexuality and Left-handedness have the same basic traits but one has been recieving more attention and controversy than the other.

In short, Left-handedness and Homosexuality are about a good as comparison The Passion and The Prince of Egypt. Reason shot down.

Withnail
March 2nd, 2004, 11:52 PM
Left Handedness?




Since when was left-handedness was considered morally wrong by religions, condemned in the past, and now condemns those who oppose it? We are on a different level here



I believe the thread dealt with Genetic Causes ?

What level are YOU on?

Swedish
March 2nd, 2004, 11:59 PM
Left Handedness?



I believe the thread dealt with Genetic Causes ?

What level are YOU on?
Sorry, don't follow you. Can you explain what Homosexuality and Left-handedness have in common then?

sjjs
March 3rd, 2004, 01:23 AM
They're both genetically caused. Or not as the case may be.

So what?

Iluvatar
March 3rd, 2004, 12:35 PM
I've heard of several studies in favor of both sides. Some studies seem to prove that it's genetic, some that it's not. Does anyone have a conclusive source?

From what I've heard, homosexuals claim that they can't help it; that it is just the way they are. This sounds to me like a hereditary thing, but I don't know for sure.

As a believer of evolution, I have a hard time seeing HS as genetic, becuase it is a negative survival trait(HS's aren't likely to pass on thier genes).

F1Fan
March 3rd, 2004, 12:59 PM
New finds in evolutionary psychology shows unhelpful traits like social anxieties are, or have, genetic foundations. That certain traits do not reflect well in human societies as a natural tendency in other animal societies is due to man's own influence in directing the natural course of genetic influences. Man cannot be said to be a natural animal, and as a result cannot be held under the same cause and effect paradigms as animals living in the wild, or a natural environment.

So that homosexuality is prevalent, and if shown to have a genetic tie, it is not a mystery as a natural phenomenon.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/158/10/1558

AntiMaterialist
March 3rd, 2004, 01:45 PM
Actually there is significant speculation that homosexuality does present a survival trait that is then passed on. The idea goes something like this:

- The trait that makes a man gay also makes him more sociable, and relate easier to women.

- This trait, in small amounts, only makes him more sociable, not Gay.

- More sociable men are more likely to get along with women, and thus more likely to convince them to bear their offspring.

- Thus, the socialbility trait is passed on.

- When the sociability trait manifests from both parents, it manifests in its stronger form, which makes the man gay.


This would be similar to the sickle cell anemia gene. It is clearly not a survival advantage to have sickle cell anemia. However, the gene kept going because the disease only manifests when the offspring has the gene from both parents.

When the child only has the sickle cell gene from one parent, it gives him or her an increased ability to survive malaria. This survival advantage has kept the gene in the African gene pool. The fact that its double manifestation is deadly has kept the gene from becoming present is all members of that gene pool.

While this process is well demonstrated in Sickle Cell Anemia - it is not proven in homosexuality. There are tons of places to poke holes in the theory - it is just a theory at this point.

msgtdoug
March 3rd, 2004, 02:04 PM
I've heard of several studies in favor of both sides. Some studies seem to prove that it's genetic, some that it's not. Does anyone have a conclusive source?

As a believer of evolution, I have a hard time seeing HS as genetic, becuase it is a negative survival trait(HS's aren't likely to pass on thier genes).

Hemophilia is also passed genetically... that rather shoots your premise in the foot.

Color-blindness is passed genetically.... again, your premise gets shot in the foot.

Rather than try to place blame on a person for being who they are... I will ask you to EACH list the steps you took to determine YOUR sexuality.

Did you have a relationship with both a male AND a female to ensure you made the "right choice"?

I am wondering which of you has the courage to be honest... and even more importantly which of you will have the courage to recognize that a person's sexuality is not your business to evaluate or challenge.


However, I will share with you that I am a homosexual... and I "passed" my genes through three children.... again, shooting your premise in the foot.

Elicea
March 3rd, 2004, 02:22 PM
I like your message. I am not a homosexual, but I am of the understanding that it is nobody's business. It is just another beautiful aspect of what the world is consisted of.

KevinBrowning
March 3rd, 2004, 02:33 PM
Title says it all. Discuss.
I am of the opinion that it is a mental disorder, as it was classified as late into the last century.

sjjs
March 3rd, 2004, 02:51 PM
I am of the opinion that it is a mental disorder, as it was classified as late into the last century.

Hmmm. I thought that canard died with the Nazis.

But, onto a related issue. What is the relevance of asking whether it is hereditary or not? What difference does that make? Some people inherit blue eyes, some not. Should we discriminate? Some people adopt religious beliefs in later life and some do not. Should we discriminate there?

KevinBrowning
March 3rd, 2004, 03:02 PM
Hmmm. I thought that canard died with the Nazis.

But, onto a related issue. What is the relevance of asking whether it is hereditary or not? What difference does that make? Some people inherit blue eyes, some not. Should we discriminate? Some people adopt religious beliefs in later life and some do not. Should we discriminate there?
Thank you for the completely inappropriate comparison of myself to a Nazi. There is a double standard applied today when it comes to paraphilias. If homosexuality is purely genetic, having no environmental influence, and not classified as a mental disorder any longer, then why are exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, transvestic fetishism, and voyeurism still classified as mental disorders, and not purely genetic, non-environmental "preferences?"

mrs_innocent
March 3rd, 2004, 03:55 PM
What is the relevance of asking whether it is hereditary or not?

(Regarding this site: ) It's as relevant as having a debate about a movie. People want to talk about it, and that's what this site is for.

(Regarding society: ) It's really not relevant on the whole, and it is nobody's business. However, homosexuality is a very large topic of discussion in this country at the moment, and-unfortunately- there are some people that feel it is wrong. Those people do not care what the reason is, they just want to point fingers at what they don't care for.

mrs_innocent
March 3rd, 2004, 04:15 PM
Title says it all. Discuss.

I think that it very well could be genetic. I believe that many of our traits are predetermined genetically and are later influenced, learned, or adapted. To further my opinion, msgtdoug had a very good point: when did any one of us choose to be "straight"? I can say that I personally have no recollection of making that decision, yet, I'm confident I made the right one.

KevinBrowning
March 3rd, 2004, 05:18 PM
(Regarding this site: ) It's as relevant as having a debate about a movie. People want to talk about it, and that's what this site is for.

(Regarding society: ) It's really not relevant on the whole, and it is nobody's business. However, homosexuality is a very large topic of discussion in this country at the moment, and-unfortunately- there are some people that feel it is wrong. Those people do not care what the reason is, they just want to point fingers at what they don't care for.
I feel it is wrong, and I do care what the reason is. I have stated my opinion that it is a mental disorder, and given my reasoning.

mrs_innocent
March 3rd, 2004, 05:26 PM
I feel it is wrong, and I do care what the reason is. I have stated my opinion that it is a mental disorder, and given my reasoning.

Okay, I understand that. I was not making reference to you, though; I apologize if it may have seemed that way. It is my belief that *on the whole* those who feel homosexuality is wrong do not care about any "reason" for it. Those people would prefer to point the finger and hand down their judgements without giving any thought at all to the person they're judging. For many people, if it doesn't fit into their norm, it's wrong. I view that type of opponent as ignorant, and intolerant of something that simply scares them. But, again, I was not referring to your opinion.

KevinBrowning
March 3rd, 2004, 05:29 PM
Okay, I understand that. I was not making reference to you, though; I apologize if it may have seemed that way. It is my belief that *on the whole* those who feel homosexuality is wrong do not care about any "reason" for it. Those people would prefer to point the finger and hand down their judgements without giving any thought at all to the person they're judging. For many people, if it doesn't fit into their norm, it's wrong. I view that type of opponent as ignorant, and intolerant of something that simply scares them. But, again, I was not referring to your opinion.
No offense taken. I do not hold any hatred towards homosexuals, although I disapprove of their lifestyle. I think a Christian's duty is to show love and kindness to homosexuals, rather than abuse and insult them.

RTShatto
March 3rd, 2004, 06:06 PM
Sorry, don't follow you. Can you explain what Homosexuality and Left-handedness have in common then?
Where do you think we get the word sinister from? :)

Withnail
March 3rd, 2004, 06:25 PM
I do not mean to be crass.
Only in extreme situations can I imagine someone choosing to be gay (an abused woman hating men so much she renounces them).

As a social threat (like a disease) I'm not so sure. Isn't there a theory that this is what caused the Maya to dissappear? That they all turned gay and died out?

Actually that's garbage. I just made that up.

Here's the crass part. What do you envision when you masturbate? (sharing not necessary). If it's primarily the same gender as you, than you are a homosexual. Do we choose the images that turn us on?

AntiMaterialist
March 3rd, 2004, 07:09 PM
Thank you for the completely inappropriate comparison of myself to a Nazi. There is a double standard applied today when it comes to paraphilias. If homosexuality is purely genetic, having no environmental influence, and not classified as a mental disorder any longer, then why are exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, transvestic fetishism, and voyeurism still classified as mental disorders, and not purely genetic, non-environmental "preferences?"

Paraphilias are classified as diseases if they are harmful to the practitioner, or to others. Homosexuality can be classified as part of a disease in DSM-IVR if the individual is uncomfortable with his or her homosexuality.

The basic idea of a disease is that it causes harm.

Tell me, Kevin, what harm does homosexuality in and of itself cause? I understand that irresponsible sexual behavior, especially if it involves unprotected anal intercourse, can spread HIV and other nasty infections.

But - what harm does homosexuality, if practiced in a safe and loving manner, cause to anyone?

F1Fan
March 3rd, 2004, 07:32 PM
I am of the opinion that it is a mental disorder, as it was classified as late into the last century.

Can you explain in detail how you are qualified to make this judgment?



If homosexuality is purely genetic, having no environmental influence, and not classified as a mental disorder any longer, then why are exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, transvestic fetishism, and voyeurism still classified as mental disorders, and not purely genetic, non-environmental "preferences?"
Mental disorders (illnesses) are classified as compulsive acts or behaviors, and that cause dysfunction in normal life.



I feel it is wrong, and I do care what the reason is. I have stated my opinion that it is a mental disorder, and given my reasoning.
Actually, you gave a reason that is invalid. You haven't demonstrated that you understand what a disorder is, and how you can assess what a disorder is or isn't.



I think a Christian's duty is to show love and kindness to homosexuals, rather than abuse and insult them.

I think you invalidated showing love and kindness when you made an unqualified judgment about their mental state. How can you, as a Christian, justify this? Do you understand that you haven't demonstrated a competency to judge, although you did anyway? What would Jesus say to you right now?

mask
March 3rd, 2004, 07:36 PM
I think you invalidated showing love and kindness when you made an unqualified judgment about their mental state.

so evaluating actions in terms of morality or even in chritian terms is hate and cruelty??? if he's not qualified he would be mistaken not cruel
besides ru qualified to call him not qualified??

mrs_innocent
March 3rd, 2004, 07:51 PM
Can you explain in detail how you are qualified to make this judgment?

How is it a matter of qualification? The wonderful thing about opinions is that nobody needs any qualifications to form them. I do not agree with Kevin's opinion, but in his defense, he is entitled to it. Actually, the "mental disorder" argument is quite popular amongst those who believe homosexuality is wrong.

AntiMaterialist
March 3rd, 2004, 08:30 PM
Actually, the "mental disorder" argument is quite popular amongst those who believe homosexuality is wrong.


Indeed - just as the mental disorder argument is quite popular amongst those of us who think strict adherence to a 2000 year old book, which happens to teach that homosexuality is wrong, is just nuts.

Iluvatar
March 4th, 2004, 02:46 AM
Hemophilia is also passed genetically... that rather shoots your premise in the foot. Hemophilia is a recessive desease, right? How does that hurt my arguement?


Color-blindness is passed genetically.... again, your premise gets shot in the foot. Color-blindness isn't usualy genetic, though it can be. Again, how does this say anything in rgards to the discussion?


Rather than try to place blame on a person for being who they are... I will ask you to EACH list the steps you took to determine YOUR sexuality. I choose my sexuality because I don't fell the things for memebers of my gender that I do for the other.


hich of you will have the courage to recognize that a person's sexuality is not your business to evaluate or challenge.
This is a debate site. We evaluate and challange everything. Remember though, that we're discussing whether it's genetic, not whether it's right or wrong.


However, I will share with you that I am a homosexual... and I "passed" my genes through three children.... again, shooting your premise in the foot. That ones still not very convincing. A parent has a great influence on his kid's lifestyle. If you really want to know, have a few more kids and put them up for adoption. If they turn out homosexual in 18 years, then you have evidence ot support your claim.


I am of the opinion that it is a mental disorder, as it was classified as late into the last century. On what basis was it classified as a mental disorder?

sjjs
March 4th, 2004, 03:10 AM
Deleted - my argument went in the wrong direction :)

suchislife
March 4th, 2004, 08:03 AM
Out of curiosity..Does anyone really know if its genetic or not?

In other words, could someone supply a link re: the gentic study of homosexuality. I'd really like to learn more on this.

Thanks

agricola
March 4th, 2004, 10:15 AM
Out of curiosity..Does anyone really know if its genetic or not?

In other words, could someone supply a link re: the gentic study of homosexuality. I'd really like to learn more on this.

Thanks

agricola: i can provide christian links that tell you it isn't and other links that tell you it is.

but OF COURSE the christian links are BIASED (o brother)

soi wont bother with either;)

Spartacus
March 4th, 2004, 12:44 PM
There is no evidence that Homosexuality is genetic.

If homosexuallty were genetic then gay men would not be able to become aroused and impregnate women -- yet they do this all the time.

My own personal view is that although a very small minority of people are inclined to this behavior at birth -- for what reason I do not suppose to know -- the mojority of Gays are gay because that is what they choose to be. Many homosexuals have a history of sexual abuse as a child or teenager. Abuse of alcohol and drugs is much higher among gays than in heteros. Is there a causal relationship here?

We do know that Honmosexuals have always been among us. My own theory is that it is a natural form of population controla as homosexual acts increase in lab animals when they are crowded and stressed -- this is also true of men and women in prison. Although in the lab studies both sexes were eqaully represnted.

From my perspective, someone who is inclined to this behavior has three choices -- they can submit to their animal urges and behave in a manner that is not accepted by society or any major religion. They can work to change their urges and live as a heterosexual -- or they can see the inclination as a calling to live life as a person more focused the spiritual than the temporal. Intense Daily prayer and worship does kill all sexual urges.

mrs_innocent
March 4th, 2004, 01:19 PM
Intense Daily prayer and worship does kill all sexual urges.

Is this information (your entire post) that you've gotten from an actual source, or your own personal opinion? I certainly respect your opinion, but what I've read here is preposterous. How can it be concluded that homosexuality is consciously chosen over heterosexuality? That statement will always lead back to one question: at what poin in our lives did we choose our sexuality, and what influenced our decisions? My daughter is 4 years old and tells me all the time, "He's cute" referring to the little boy next to us at [the grocery store]. Certainly she is of no understanding about sexuality, so what is making her notice a boy vs. a girl? And the prayer thing, well......I think I'm going to leave that alone. :rolleyes:

Spartacus
March 4th, 2004, 01:28 PM
What is sexuality?

Is it what goes on in our minds that relates to our sexual arousal...or is it the sexual acts we conciously perform?

We choose what sexual acts we perofrm. We do not choose where our minds might wander, but with discipline we can train our mind to focus on some things and ignore others -- and the prayer thing -- it is not only prayer.

I have spent hundreds of days living out of a backpack with nothing but heterosexual (I think) men while serving in the Army. With no visual or audible sexual stimuli the urges are minimized -- even without prayer. Being tired all the time cut down on the urges too. But, to my wife's amazement, intense prayer and meditation can affect the most errogenous of organs -- the mind -- and turn "urges" into true acts of love for others. Try it....I challenge you. It is hard to get aroused when one spends time on a daily basis praying and meditating on God and what Jesus taught us.

mrs_innocent
March 4th, 2004, 01:31 PM
Try it....I challenge you.

You forget, I'm a married woman--I don't need tricks to curb my urges! LOL :D

Spartacus
March 4th, 2004, 01:42 PM
You forget, I'm a married woman--I don't need tricks to curb my urges! LOL :D

Are you married to a man or woman? Either way then you certainly can appreciate how passions and desires can and should be keopt under control. We should not become servants to our base urges.

mrs_innocent
March 4th, 2004, 01:50 PM
Although he may sometimes act 'like a woman', I am married to a man. But I don't really understand what our basic sexual urges has to do with the topic at hand. Nor do I understand how my husband's gender relates....

KevinBrowning
March 4th, 2004, 01:55 PM
Can you explain in detail how you are qualified to make this judgment?
I never said I was "qualified to make this judgment." What I have said is merely my opinion.




Mental disorders (illnesses) are classified as compulsive acts or behaviors, and that cause dysfunction in normal life.
Dysfunction: "Abnormal or impaired functioning, especially of a bodily system or social group." -<CITE>The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.</CITE>
<CITE></CITE>
<CITE>Normal: "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical." -<CITE>The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.</CITE></CITE>
<CITE><CITE></CITE></CITE>
<CITE><CITE>Thus, homosexuality is a dysfunction.</CITE></CITE>




Actually, you gave a reason that is invalid. You haven't demonstrated that you understand what a disorder is, and how you can assess what a disorder is or isn't.
See above.




I think you invalidated showing love and kindness when you made an unqualified judgment about their mental state. How can you, as a Christian, justify this? Do you understand that you haven't demonstrated a competency to judge, although you did anyway? What would Jesus say to you right now?
I do not know, since it would be in Aramaic. Here are some quotes you might find informative:

From Dr. Dean Hamer, the "gay gene" researcher, and himself a gay man:

"Genes are hardware...the data of life's experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what's installed at the factory and what's added by the user."--P. Copeland and D. Hamer (1994) The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and Schuster.

From psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.:

"Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development."--J. Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey state that "a biopsychosocial model" best fits our knowledge of causation, with various combinations of temperament and environmental events leading to homosexuality. They say:

"Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality."--R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993.

Here is the site if you want to read more:

http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html.

This topic is just like macroevolution. People claim they know something for sure, when there is precious little evidence to back it up. Once society accepts a "scientific" explanation, regardless of its support, it is set in stone.

AntiMaterialist
March 4th, 2004, 01:58 PM
My own personal view is that although a very small minority of people are inclined to this behavior at birth -- for what reason I do not suppose to know -- the mojority of Gays are gay because that is what they choose to be.

Sparticus - this is just an ignorant comment. Almost no one chooses homosexuality - just ask homosexuals about this and it will become obvious to you. This does not mean they cannot change their orientation - there is evidence to show some success with conversion therapy - though not for all homosexuals.

Personally, I just don't see any reason to bother changing. I think conversion therapy is only appropriate when the individual is uncomfortable with his or her orientation.

You keep blathering about how we should not give in to our base urges - but that is a blind alley of reasoning. You can be gay without being overly impulsive. You can be straight and be way too sexually impulsive.

I think you define all homosexual desire as a base urge, and do not define all heterosexual desire as a base urge. Such definitions bias the argument before it gets started.

Responsible homosexual love is just as beautiful of a thing as responsible heterosexual love. If you had not chosen your biases before making your evaluations, you would be able to see that.

And this is what it comes down to - emotion. The logic behind condemning homosexuality falls short every time, and can be shot to pieces every time. In truth, those who indulge in hatred of homosexuality are just grossed out by it, and cannot bring themselves to just not worry about it, since it is none of their business.

AntiMaterialist
March 4th, 2004, 02:00 PM
Dysfunction: "Abnormal or impaired functioning, especially of a bodily system or social group." -The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Normal: "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical." -The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Thus, homosexuality is a dysfunction.

What evidence can you supply that homosexuality is abnormal? Do you feel that all things that are not practiced by the majority are abnormal, and thus dysfunctional? It is abnormal to be over 7 feet tall - should really tall people beconsidered dysfunctional?

Swedish
March 4th, 2004, 02:40 PM
Here's something to make your heads scratch, or maybe not:

A more serious rebuttal to simple learning explanations comes from the work of anthropologist Gilbert Herdt. Herdt studied the Sambia tribe in New Guinea and their mythology of masculine development. A Sambia boy must imbibe quantities of semen in order to become virile and able to ejaculate semen himself. Thus, the pre-adolescent boys fellate older adolescent and young adult men to fill their bodies with the masculinizing fluid. Later, they will be fellated in their turn by the younger initiates. It works for the Sambia. Since Sambian youth are having homosexual orgasms year after year, taking first one part and eventually the other and having a perfectly enjoyable time, why don't they become "conditioned" to same-sex arousal and continue to seek it after their time comes to leave the men's hut, to court and marry? They just don't. The occasional older man does want to keep doing it with guys (it's a small tribe) but he is the rare exception.

Spartacus
March 4th, 2004, 04:50 PM
So a small tribe of maybe a few dozen people engage ina practice reviled by most of the rest of the world and that is used as an argument that the bahvaior is OK, "normal" and natural?

A man's body was not made to be penetrated by the penis of another man.

Rather a woman's vagina is designed to be penetrated by the penis pof a man. Nature has made this very clear to all but the people who manipulate facts for their own reasons.

Please within this discussion can we separate homosexual urges and tendemncies from Homosexual behavior. It is not the person, but the behavior that is wrong. I have sometimes fantasize about torturing and killing certain human beings, but I do not act on these fanatasies or urges.

I used to be prone to violent tendencies and very much enjoyed engaging in physical combat. The urge is still there, but I have learned to control it. To master the compulsion rather than letting it master me.

To those who claim homosexuality is not a choice: You are trying to convince yourself with disingenuous logic. A person chooses whether or or not to act out sexual or other impulses. A person chooses to give in to animalistic urges.

Has that tribe in New Guinea started a sex tour business yet where homosexul men and pedophiles can visit and pay money to live in the mens' huts? I am sure it sounds like Eden to those men inclined to sexual urges not shared by a majority of other men (abnormal urges -- as in not normal).

mrs_innocent
March 4th, 2004, 05:08 PM
Please within this discussion can we separate homosexual urges and tendemncies from Homosexual behavior

Where exactly do you see the difference between homosexual urges/tendencies and homosexual behavior?

And, when mentioning sexual acts, please keep in mind that nothing is black & white anymore (not that I really know when it was....). As another member pointed out earlier, sexual behavior encompasses many things, not just genitalia.

Spartacus
March 4th, 2004, 05:17 PM
Where exactly do you see the difference between homosexual urges/tendencies and homosexual behavior?

Do you draw no distinction between thoughts and behavior?

F1Fan
March 4th, 2004, 06:13 PM
Dysfunction: "Abnormal or impaired functioning, especially of a bodily system or social group." -The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Normal: "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical." -The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Thus, homosexuality is a dysfunction.
I'm glad you're doing homework. I don't think you are applying it properly. You've stated two definitions, however, you failed to explain how homosexuality is relevant, and in what way.

Abnormal in a context of psychology is out side of normal social functioning, not difference, not rebels. Dysfunction of a bodily system is like kidney failure, how is this applicable to homosexuality at all?

Normality changes. Norms simply reflect societal trends. There's an argument what affects which more: norms onto society, or natural trends onto norms. The fact is, both are a dynamic relationship with few certainties. What is typical now is not what was typical 60 years ago. Few women worked. Those who did were gender roles like nurses or secretaries, and were paid poorly. Black people were segregated, it was normal. Now, tell about how certain norms are.



People claim they know something for sure, when there is precious little evidence to back it up.It's ironic you say this after justifying an opinion you still haven't shown a competency in giving. Are you saying that if you give just any opinion, and there happens to be evidence for it, you're lucky? So then, what do you recommend we say to those who give an opinion without any demonstrated authority on the subject?

Spartacus
March 4th, 2004, 07:59 PM
Abnormal in a context of psychology is out side of normal social functioning,

Leave it to the atheist to revert to psychobabble. Psychology is not a science as results of experiements in psychology are too subjective and not repeatable. It is not a healing art because psychologists can rarely agree on a diagnosis -- let alone a treatment.

Behavior however can be studied as science. People who regularly and routinely engage in homsexual sex acts (3 - 10% depending on where you get your info) are a very small percentage and as such are abnormal a group behaving in a manner deviant from the norm.

F1Fan
March 4th, 2004, 09:49 PM
Leave it to the atheist to revert to psychobabble.
How some fear education, and strut their bias, is shameful. But who's the atheist? I'm not.



Psychology is not a science as results of experiements in psychology are too subjective and not repeatable.
Your assessment is incorrect. It's true that psychology deals with a dynamic subject. So experimentation has a requirement of being at least 95% positive demonstration of a theory's prediction for it to be considered valid. And actually, experiments are repeated, and shown to be valid through repetition. Still, the evolving state of the world and societies mean the dynamic subject of humans do require an evolution of study.



It is not a healing art because psychologists can rarely agree on a diagnosis -- let alone a treatment.
What are you referring to. I doubt, given your nasty and biased remarks, that you have a sound understanding of how psychology works. There are numerous approaches in psychology, what you're implying here deal with cognitive psychology or clinical psychology, neither of which is my interest.



Behavior however can be studied as science. People who regularly and routinely engage in homsexual sex acts (3 - 10% depending on where you get your info) are a very small percentage and as such are abnormal a group behaving in a manner deviant from the norm.
Are you speaking as an authority is science, or in bias? You're beating your head against a wall.

Withnail
March 4th, 2004, 10:01 PM
Sparticus, you are obviously creeped out by the thought of homosexual sex. That's fine. I just wanted to throw some of your own words back at you.



My own personal view is that although a very small minority of people are inclined to this behavior at birth -- for what reason I do not suppose to know


If this behavior was inclined from birth , wouldn't that seem genetic? I realize you go on to say that most homosexuals choose, but what about this small minority you mention?



We do know that Honmosexuals have always been among us


Will they continue to be among us? If everyone in some future society prayed all the time to surpress these deviant urges, could homosexuality be eradicated? I question the power of prayer in its ability to control these urges. Unless these Catholic preists I've read about were only pretending to pray.

I concede that there is not universal scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. But to me, it makes sense. The brain is a powerfull organ, as you say, and if you like chocolate, for instance, it's almost impossible to convince yourself you don't like chocolate.



To those who claim homosexuality is not a choice: You are trying to convince yourself with disingenuous logic. A person chooses whether or or not to act out sexual or other impulses. A person chooses to give in to animalistic urges


Do you believe everyone has these animalistic urges? That everyone has a private battle with whether or not they want homosexual sex? Are you saying that the only real homosexuals are those that physically engage in homosexual sex?

sjjs
March 5th, 2004, 02:23 AM
a practice reviled by most of the rest of the world

And your statistics are where? Please don't extrapolate your own feelings onto everyone else.

AntiMaterialist
March 5th, 2004, 05:03 AM
To those who claim homosexuality is not a choice: You are trying to convince yourself with disingenuous logic. A person chooses whether or or not to act out sexual or other impulses. A person chooses to give in to animalistic urges.

Sparticus - you keep restating your opinion without justifying it.

Heterosexual sex between a married couple in which one or both of them is sterile could also be viewed as giving in to animalistic urges - does this make it wrong? Giving in to violenent urges is a bad thing because it harms people. Love between two men is not inherently harmful to others.

As for it being abnormal - let's settle this foolish concept right now. Abnormal can be used to imply something bad, or to just state something is outside of the norm. The use of abnormal in the definition of dysfunctional refers to abnormal/bad. Tell me - do you think all abnormal behavior is dysfunctional?

Spartacus
March 6th, 2004, 07:08 PM
to withnail:

Yes the idea of one man felating or penetrating the rectum and anus of another man does creep me out. It is not normal behavior. I loathe my annual physical and can not comprehend anyone deriving pleasure from such activity.

This behavior has been forbidden in society throughout human history. It is forbidden by every major religion. To me this is reason enough for me to think the behavior is wrong.



ALSO: inclined to condition at birth does not necessarily imply genetics. MS is a disease which runs in familes yet it is not inherrited. Other factors besides genetics can play a huge role in such matters. Statisically Gay men are more likely to have been sexually abused children. They are also more likely to have been the victim of a pedophile. Drug and alcohol abuse rates are much in gays than heterosexuals. From my own experience with gay friends and family members I think they have tortured spirits and often try to numb the pain. In general I think gays ae in fact quite sad pople who are in need of real love and forgivenes...not more orgasms.

Hey anti....I feel you are pestering me. Why do I need to justify to your satisfaction what have been behaviorial norms for all of human history?

sjjs
March 7th, 2004, 08:03 AM
This behavior has been forbidden in society throughout human history.

Bollocks. Ancient Greece to name but one. Those macho men the Spartans actively encouraged it as men in battle would fight harder to save their lover than their comrade.

AntiMaterialist
March 7th, 2004, 09:40 AM
Hey anti....I feel you are pestering me. Why do I need to justify to your satisfaction what have been behaviorial norms for all of human history?

You do not need to do anything - your actions are your choice. Look - it isn't personal. It is just that I believe that your attitude is at the root of a lot of painful ostracization that homosexuals experience around the world. Your stated reasons for hating homosexuality are based on the idea that it is gross to you, that society condemns it - that sort of thing. I believe these are poor reasons.

I believe that homosexual romance is essential to homosexuals, and as such do not wish to see them ostracized for a behavior that, in their lives, is a good thing.

Also - you seem to be fixating on their sexual practices, whereas I am more focused on the human need for romantic love. There is nothing that homosexuals do that heterosexuals also don't do. Honestly, I think you need to worry less about what others do in their bedrooms. If you don't like it, don't think about it.

Withnail
March 7th, 2004, 10:20 AM
Spartacus,

MS is understood to be partially hereditary.


MS is a disease which runs in familes yet it is not inherrited


How can a disease run in families and not be partially hereditary? There are certainly other factors with MS, and an MS gene has not been directly mapped, but it is understood that heredity is a big factor with the disease.

I question your statement that homosexuals were more likely to be sexually abused as children. And by pedophiles too! With regards to pedophile abuse, we can look at those children that were abused by Catholic Priests. Did most of them turn gay?

I would agree that Homosexuals have a higher level of depression in this country, and with that substance abuse. But I would argue that this is because they feel aliented by people with views like yours. What's the worst insult a school boy can call another school boy? I'm sure you've heard it, it's used in every school hallway and locker room in this country. From a very young age we are culturaly taught that Gays are the worst of the worst.
Only by growing up and thinking for ourselves can one see the cultural bias.



In general I think gays ae in fact quite sad pople who are in need of real love and forgivenes...not more orgasms.


??? Perhaps a "Stop Gay Orgasms" campaign?

neuromed07
March 25th, 2004, 05:52 PM
Well, I know these posts were at the beginning of the month, but I feel compelled to offer a response. I am qualified to answer about same-sex attractions as pathological, as I am a Ph.D. in Psychology. I am also currently working on my M.D. Further, my Ph.D. dissertation was into same-sex attractions, specifically dystonic sexual orientation in gay males. First, as another user has noted, "disorder" in psychology must impact social, personal, familial, and occupational functioning in a negative fashion. Second, individuals with a given trait must demonstrate, in a statistically significant fashion, departures from commonly deemed scales of normalcy and adjustment. Studies since 1973 have continued to show adjusted gay males do not differ on normalcy measures from straight males. The same is true for lesbians. These research studies have utilized the MMPI (Horstman, 1973; Doidge & Holtzman in the 1960s) and the Rorschach (Hooker, being the example.) Repeated studies have continued to support this. Thus, a same-sex sexual attraction is not a disorder in any sense of the word. You may choose to label it as "disordered" from your obviously Christian perspective, but, I should add, your perspective is not supported by research. As far as gay sexual orientation is concerned, studies are clear that sexual orientation, and I am referring to all types, is not chosen, period. The internal, pervasive and internal attraction to a particular sex is beyond conscious control and immutable. The classic Hammersmith, Bell and Weinberg study in psychology, to date, the largest of its kind, gave the following results. 1.) It is not chosen. 2.) It is not associated with any one particular family or social situation. 3.) It is not "adopted" after extensive same-sex behavior. Rather, internal feelings of attraction precede acts, on average, by three years. 4.) Retrospective analysis indicates that the feeling is present in childhood; adults recall they were "different." Additionally, meta-analysis of studies indicate that the internal attraction is immutable. We have studies since the 1930s (when psychology attempted to change gay people) that continue to show the internal attractions can not be changed. Even when "therapy" was more noxious (as in electrical shocks and induced vomiting), those "treated" returned to their original same-sex behaviors quickly, with virtually all patients returning within a few years. In light of this information, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association repeat what the studies have supported, namely that a gay sexual orientation is not a disorder. Biologically speaking, we know, without question, a biological predisposition exists. Monozygotic and Dizygotic twin studies have shown varied results, but even Bailey's famous study found heritability in a statistically significant fashion. Could be genes, hormones, or other things, but it is there. Lastly, I noted, specifically, you cite Satinover and NARTH. NARTH, an organization with an a priori assumption that being gay is wrong, does research into "conversion" therapy. Let me be clear. To date, they have never provided research without methodological flaws that indicate that sexual orientation can be changed. Further, organizations with invested interest (the a priori assumptions) must be approached with caution. Lastly, Satinover even admits in his book that he assumes being gay is wrong, again in direct contradiction to scientific studies. He ends by speaking of theology. The invested interest is obvious.

AntiMaterialist
March 25th, 2004, 06:07 PM
Let me be clear. To date, they have never provided research without methodological flaws that indicate that sexual orientation can be changed.

My understanding is that even the conversion therapy crowd admit there are those for whom conversion is impossible.

neuromed07
March 25th, 2004, 06:23 PM
My understanding is that even the conversion therapy crowd admit there are those for whom conversion is impossible.

Yes, that is true.

WatsonGlenn
March 25th, 2004, 06:46 PM
Satinover even admits in his book that he assumes being gay is wrong, again in direct contradiction to scientific studies.

When did science ever get to decide right and wrong?

F1Fan
March 25th, 2004, 06:56 PM
When did science ever get to decide right and wrong?
When society found religion morally incapable.

WatsonGlenn
March 25th, 2004, 07:01 PM
When society found religion morally incapable.

When did society come to that conclusion?

wannabemp
March 25th, 2004, 09:28 PM
Behavior however can be studied as science. People who regularly and routinely engage in homsexual sex acts (3 - 10% depending on where you get your info) are a very small percentage and as such are abnormal a group behaving in a manner deviant from the norm.

OK I realise this quotation is old but I was just wondering how you saw 1/20 people as such a huge minority? And that's the smaller figure! It could be as high as 1 in 10 people who are homosexual... is that really such a small percentage?!

I don't believe that society has ever officially said that "religion is morally incapable." However, it seems to be a general consensus amongst about half the population that some of religion's morals are no longer fitting to our society. I mean, the fact that we are having this debate today tells you how religion's voice has decreased dramatically in power.

The reason that religion is not as strong as it used to be is because it fails to modernize with the changing times. Although it seems ironic that the church can modify its ideals to allow for divorce half a century ago but cannot bring themselves to bring more people together in marriage in 2004.

AntiMaterialist
March 26th, 2004, 05:50 AM
When did society come to that conclusion?

On October 14, 1973 at 2:54am.

sjjs
March 26th, 2004, 05:55 AM
Damn, I was asleep at the time.

agricola
March 26th, 2004, 08:27 AM
Indeed - just as the mental disorder argument is quite popular amongst those of us who think strict adherence to a 2000 year old book, which happens to teach that homosexuality is wrong, is just nuts.


im glad that you realize that this means nothing. lol.

agricola
March 26th, 2004, 08:45 AM
This topic is just like macroevolution. People claim they know something for sure, when there is precious little evidence to back it up. Once society accepts a "scientific" explanation, regardless of its support, it is set in stone.


same with microevolution, kevin. there is no such thing as microevolution either. there is simply in adaptation of already present genetic information. micorevolution is suggesting that little changes happen, and over billions of years these turn into huge changes. micorevolution is suggesting that new genetic material is incorporated into the species, and over millions of years this turns into macroevolution. we have to realize that that is why evolution is totally unscientific. because it assumes creation from nothing without a supreme being. new genetic material just happens to show up from nowhere. but that never has and never will happpen. it is there already.

like the moth example in england. no that is not an example of evolution today. lol. it is simply natural selection. the white moths were easier to see and therefore they were eaten by the birds. eventually there were mostly black moths and they produced more black moths. it is interesting to note that throughout the years from 1840 to today, the white and black moth population has constant fluctuations in color. one year there will be lighter moths than another year, and it is not a tendency towards one color, it tends toward black and then white and constantly changes back and forth over the years.

natural selection is NOT evolution.

and also, these moths are still moths. just one is black one is white. lol. the black one is not closer to becoming a new species, or evolvign into a fruitfly or anything like that. it is simply a darker version of the same moth.

agricola
March 26th, 2004, 08:50 AM
Sparticus - this is just an ignorant comment. Almost no one chooses homosexuality - just ask homosexuals about this and it will become obvious to you. This does not mean they cannot change their orientation - there is evidence to show some success with conversion therapy - though not for all homosexuals.

Personally, I just don't see any reason to bother changing. I think conversion therapy is only appropriate when the individual is uncomfortable with his or her orientation.

You keep blathering about how we should not give in to our base urges - but that is a blind alley of reasoning. You can be gay without being overly impulsive. You can be straight and be way too sexually impulsive.

I think you define all homosexual desire as a base urge, and do not define all heterosexual desire as a base urge. Such definitions bias the argument before it gets started.

Responsible homosexual love is just as beautiful of a thing as responsible heterosexual love. If you had not chosen your biases before making your evaluations, you would be able to see that.

And this is what it comes down to - emotion. The logic behind condemning homosexuality falls short every time, and can be shot to pieces every time. In truth, those who indulge in hatred of homosexuality are just grossed out by it, and cannot bring themselves to just not worry about it, since it is none of their business.


well YOU keep blathering on about how condemnation of homosexuality can be shot to pieces.

now shoot it to pieces.

u know like davy crockett says, do it first, then talk about it.

agricola
March 26th, 2004, 08:55 AM
So then, what do you recommend we say to those who give an opinion without any demonstrated authority on the subject?

like ur posting?

well use it for a paperweight. ;)

agricola
March 26th, 2004, 09:03 AM
Tell me - do you think all abnormal behavior is dysfunctional?

i hope no one falls into the trap you are trying to set.

of course not all abnormal behaviour is bad. one time there was a little child sitting on the middle of train tracks and a guy ran and rescued the baby and lost his own life. thats pretty abnormal.

homosexuality is abnormal because: 1-2% of people in north america are homosexuals. even that number is considered to be high.

therefore, 98-99% of people are "normal"

AntiMaterialist
March 26th, 2004, 09:10 AM
well YOU keep blathering on about how condemnation of homosexuality can be shot to pieces.

now shoot it to pieces.

u know like davy crockett says, do it first, then talk about it.


I am only going to debate with you, Agricola, using your method of debating. I am going to make short declarative statements, put LOL after them, and state that you don't know what you are talking about.

All arguments that attempt to show homosexuality as inherently wrong on this message board have been throroughly countered. You obviously just have not read those arguments, lol. The only reason fundies have for condemning homosexuality is because the Bible does so - which of course is just silliness, lol.

There is precious little reason to consider the Bible a revelation from God, and plenty of reason to consider it heavily biased by the beliefs of those men who wrote it. You keep stating there is tons of evidence to support the divine origin of the Bible, but fail to present that evidence. Like somebody somewhere once said, "put up or shut up", lol.

F1Fan
March 26th, 2004, 09:39 AM
I second AM's last post. I have nothing for or against homosexuality, and yet I feel no threat by it, neither to my beliefs, nor to my moral sense, nor as a human and part of society. I feel compassion for those who are different and trying to feel a part of this open society, and are being faced down by those who claim to be of the highest moral order. To my mind, that believers feel threatened shows not only a failure of morality, but a vacuum of spirit and any degree of compassion and understanding. That itself is an argument against the very beliefs that believers vocally advocate, yet fail to demonstrate.

agricola
March 26th, 2004, 09:45 AM
I am only going to debate with you, Agricola, using your method of debating. I am going to make short declarative statements, put LOL after them, and state that you don't know what you are talking about.

All arguments that attempt to show homosexuality as inherently wrong on this message board have been throroughly countered. You obviously just have not read those arguments, lol. The only reason fundies have for condemning homosexuality is because the Bible does so - which of course is just silliness, lol.

There is precious little reason to consider the Bible a revelation from God, and plenty of reason to consider it heavily biased by the beliefs of those men who wrote it. You keep stating there is tons of evidence to support the divine origin of the Bible, but fail to present that evidence. Like somebody somewhere once said, "put up or shut up", lol.


i am flattered that you admire my debating style. lol (;))

well, YOU keep stating that there is "precious little reason to consider the bible a revelation form God." YOU keep stating that there is tons of evidence to disclaim the divine origin of the Bible, but fail to present that evidence. like somone somewhere once said, "put up or shut up" lol

agricola
March 26th, 2004, 09:47 AM
I second AM's last post. I have nothing for or against homosexuality, and yet I feel no threat by it, neither to my beliefs, nor to my moral sense, nor as a human and part of society. I feel compassion for those who are different and trying to feel a part of this open society, and are being faced down by those who claim to be of the highest moral order. To my mind, that believers feel threatened shows not only a failure of morality, but a vacuum of spirit and any degree of compassion and understanding. That itself is an argument against the very beliefs that believers vocally advocate, yet fail to demonstrate.


well should we take that stance on everything?

"we MUST have compassion on everyone, therefore we cannot condemn the actions of them, because that is restricting."

AntiMaterialist
March 26th, 2004, 10:12 AM
i am flattered that you admire my debating style. lol
To be honest, I find it ludicrous. You post statements, don't back them up, and then act like you've actually made a reasonable point. In Galileo's time, you would have smugly assured him the Earth was the center of the Universe, lol. When someone asks you a tough question, you either don't answer, of just tell them to go read answersingenesis - which is most laughable.



YOU keep stating that there is tons of evidence to disclaim the divine origin of the Bible, but fail to present that evidence. like somone somewhere once said, "put up or shut up" lol

So - I notice you failed to actually put up, does this mean you will be shutting up, lol?

You are mistaken about what I have said - I state there is a lack of sufficient evidence to support the Bible, and plenty of <u>reasons</u> not to believe it - you simply have not paid attention, lol.

The reasons involve having to accept supposed moral truths that are morally repugnant, like believing that God wanted the ancient Israelites to kill homosexuals and Sunday laborers - something you must obviously support, lol. I guess that is what brainwashing does to a person, lol.

The only evidence in favor of the Bible is supposed evidence of fulfilled prophecy. But, even if that happened, which I doubt - just because something of a supernatural nature supposedly gave an individual a glimpse of the future, that would not indicate that every word uttered and written into scripture by that individual is infallible.

Now - give me some specific examples as to why you think the Bible is 100% the word of God - your own words, if you are able, lol.

neuromed07
March 27th, 2004, 01:37 PM
When did science ever get to decide right and wrong?
Science, of course, can not dictate morality. However, science can report on normative features inherent in a population. In other words, biology, specifically, has documented numerous non-primate species who engage in same-sex behavior. That is a part of biodiversity. And the same is true in humans. To label same-sex behavior, behavior science has already established as a natural part of biodiversity, as "wrong and immoral" is from a religion perspective, not science. Hence, I dispense of Satinover's opinion. The flip side is that science can not be used to call it "moral;" and I never used those terms. I was using "wrong" in a labeling sense, indicating Satinover was engaging in a moral pronouncment. This is in contrast to scientific studies, which do not seek to moralize--inherently.

FruitandNut
March 27th, 2004, 01:51 PM
To those of you who missed my posting on homosexuality. I have seen (neuropsychology) cross sections through both heterosexual and homosexual brains. There is a difference in size of a part of the brain that influences sexuality, it is more akin to that of the female.

Doubtless there are some people whose psychological sexual make up bears some ambiguity, or who are easily influenced, who may be swayed one way or the other. All part of nature's rich tapestry. A rich tapestry that is the creation of God? The same one that humanity persists in interferring with.


ps. I did not say that the shape of the brain had anything to do with it. Eugenics is not my scene - it is differences within the brain that lead to differences in us. This is also the case in the case of most homosexuality. The wisdom of ages is now largely a wisdom of the past. The cultural drag anchor will ensure a slow progress for many. Many more 'souls' will be splashing about in 'de nile'. So what's new.

chadn737
March 27th, 2004, 03:27 PM
To those of you who missed my posting on homosexuality. I have seen (neuropsychology) cross sections through both heterosexual and homosexual brains. There is a difference in size of a part of the brain that influences sexuality, it is more akin to that of the female.

The shape of the brain is not the cause of homosexuality, the difference in brain size can easily be explained by the fact that the brain is capable of changing in shape due to certain types of behavior and actions. This is true even for adults.

FruitandNut
March 28th, 2004, 02:23 PM
Yes, I thought Robert Jastrow's little parable a good one too. These scientists are likely to find some of their 'hypotheses' to be sound and others otherwise. Likewise would be the case for the theologians when they reached the summit. Not all scientists will reach those dizzy heights, but then neither will many of the theologans. The best will have the eyes to see and ears to hear.

Ancient truths and wisdom are often just that. Overtaken by new truths, founded by new knowledge. Doubtless this was also the case back in ancient times.

TheOriginal
April 4th, 2004, 04:27 PM
Humans have a defencive pattern. I think it goes like this "If it's diffrent, It's wrong. If it makes a wrong move, It's full of rage and hate.... It's wild, dangerous and must somehow be eleminated"

Debate.

FruitandNut
April 5th, 2004, 02:43 AM
TheOriginal: yes, we tend to act like the rest of nature's troops and herds when it comes to spotting and dealing with differences among our numbers. There is an 'innate' echo from the past, called 'collective memory'. This triggers an unease about something or someone who may not conform to type. It appears to be nature's way of ensuring the continuity, type and vigour of the group. If something appears odd in collective groups of animals they are often ignored or even actively harrassed out. We humans can feel ourselves or our culture threatened by too much variety, the irony being that nature also seeks to diversify.