View Full Version : Is gayness a disease?
RunToFreeForFly
Oct1-04, 02:51 AM
I think it is. Gay people trend to do what organism suppose not do. organism should **** the opposite sex.
Homosexuality is a freedom. I think it's kind of cool our human race can decide which ... sex to ****. I don't think it's a disease, as in like a virus. Just because I hang around homosexuals doesn't mean I myself am going to be one. It's free will, to choose who you want your lover to be, not depending on their gender. It is only natural for species who are sexual to mate with the opposite sex, but humans can choose this natural way or a different way. To put it straight without fussing around, I'm married to a dog named scooby (he's a shihtzu) and we're very happy together.
.. Last part was a joke.
olde drunk
Oct1-04, 09:15 AM
I have several gay friends. From what i can glean from their comments, it is a genetic predisposition. to me this means they wanted to be gay for this lifetime.
FWIW, I belive in reincarnation and freewill. We decide prior to birth the nature of the life we wish to experience. I became much more tolerant when I realized that I might be gay in another life. Somewhere, someone said that we are all one within the universe. What if the distain you show toward a gay in this life is causing you problems in your gay life???
Why not work together to help each other deal with the problems of being gay. Afterall, from what i've seen of animal behavior, it is natural to seek any port in a storm. Ever see the alfa male exile another male for being amorous??
love&peace,
olde drunk
I think it is. Gay people trend to do what organism suppose not do. organism should **** the opposite sex.
Our closest relatives, a species of chimpanzees, has sex all the time:
Males+females, males+males, females+females, mothers+sons, etc.
They use sex as a language of emotion; reproduction is merely the by-product of some of those dialogues.
Kinda like humans, really..
I think it is. Gay people trend to do what organism suppose not do. organism should **** the opposite sex.
1) The word is spelled 'disease.'
2) A disease is a condition which causes the bearer of the disease discomfort or physical harm. Homosexuality causes neither of these.
- Warren
russ_watters
Oct1-04, 03:11 PM
2) A disease is a condition which causes the bearer of the disease discomfort or physical harm. Homosexuality causes neither of these. Sure it does. It causes the same physical harm as impotency or a low sperm count. And I don't just mean having sex, I'm talking about the result of sex. I have several gay friends. From what i can glean from their comments, it is a genetic predisposition. to me this means they wanted to be gay for this lifetime. I agree that that is most likely, but thats still problematic. Combined with what I said above, if homosexuality were simply a genetic trait, it should be quickly filtered out by evolution: homosexuals tend not to have heterosexual sex and as a result tend not to have offspring, so they don't pass on that trait.
So wouldn't that make homosexuality a common genetic defect...?
Sure it does. It causes the same physical harm as impotency or a low sperm count.
Excuse me? I think you'd have to explain this a bit. If you mean "it prevents a person from having a biological child," you're wrong.
if homosexuality were simply a genetic trait, it should be quickly filtered out by evolution
Or, like the appendix or blue eyes, it will stay around forever, because it does not actually provide any negative selection pressure.
Your argument is based on the idea that some subset of the population has a "gay gene" and doesn't reproduce, while all the rest of us don't have the "gay gene" and do reproduce. This is fallacious logic. Obviously, if heterosexual women can beget homosexual childen, the "gay gene" resides in the heterosexual population, too, like the genes for other genetic traits like blue eyes.
If, in fact, homosexuality has a genetic cause, it means that all people, in general, carry one or more of the alleles involved.
If it turns out that there is no gay gene and homosexuality is instead a result of fetal hormonal environment, it means that any child, regardless of genotype, could potentially become homosexual. It's effectively the heterosexual mother's "fault," since she provided the fetal hormonal environment. Rarely are all of a women's children homosexual, however. Even if a woman is capable of causing the fetal hormonal environment that leads to homosexual children, she is also capable of having heterosexual offspring, and thus it provides her no evolutionary disadvantage. If normal, healthy heterosexual women can spontaneously have homosexual offspring, it essentially means that homosexuals have been around forever, and will continue to be around forever.
This is consistent with thousands of years of demographics -- homosexuality has been around since antiquity, and likely will always comprise a segment of the population.
- Warren
Homosexuality is strictly caused by the environment they have been raised in, and the people with the most influence on them. It is not a gene. It has been studied for years, and not one scientist found valid proof for this. Homosexuality, whether it is women or men, is either the foolish experimentation of the sex drive, or emotional harm leading to sexual confusion.
PRodQuanta
Oct2-04, 09:47 AM
dekoi said: Homosexuality is strictly caused by the environment they have been raised in, and the people with the most influence on them. It is not a gene. It has been studied for years, and not one scientist found valid proof for this. Homosexuality, whether it is women or men, is either the foolish experimentation of the sex drive, or emotional harm leading to sexual confusion. On the contrare, I know nothing of this subject, if it is or if it isn't. But when it comes to anything that relates to health, the human body, and genetic defects, I ask my mother, a nurse for countless years. She, along with the majority of her staff, believes that it is a genetic defect.
Paden Roder
olde drunk
Oct2-04, 09:52 AM
Possibly a poor choice of words. While inutero(sp) when the mothers harmones are released, they go slightly awry. Testosterone may be released to determine the sex of the child, but the other relesased harmones also overehelm the gender selection with other tentencies.
There have been men born with female genitalia and vice versa.
Bottom line for me, it is no cause for discrimination. It would be like discriminating against red heads just because they have red hair.
love&peace,
olde drunk
selfAdjoint
Oct2-04, 09:57 AM
Yes indeed olde-drunk, gay is a human condition, not different in kind from the human conditions we all find ourselves in, and no more than ours can, theirs shouldn't depend on whether it's genetic or environmental.
wuliheron
Oct2-04, 10:33 AM
Countless gay men and women have children. Just because one is gay does not mean you cannot reproduce or ever have sex with the opposite sex. The record number of children born to the same father is over 450. I suppose the rest of us, not just gays, are sick then for not wanting anywhere near as many children.
Nature loves variety, the more the better. Throughout the history of life on earth, the more variety a species can support the better chance it has to survive in the long term as environmental changes occur.
A disease is a condition which causes the bearer of the disease discomfort or physical harm. Homosexuality causes neither of these.
The only thing I can think of that this does happen is when people physically hurt homosexuals. I don't think this happens often, but it does. But I doubt that's what you meant, Warren.
Our closest relatives, a species of chimpanzees, has sex all the time:Males+females, males+males, females+females, mothers+sons, etc.
They use sex as a language of emotion; reproduction is merely the by-product of some of those dialogues.
Kinda like humans, really..
I believe you mean bonobos, and you're right. They use sex as a social tool instead of just a means for reproduction. If a female wants to become a part of a particular group, all she has to do is initiate sex to the other females or males.
I believe you mean bonobos, and you're right. They use sex as a social tool instead of just a means for reproduction. If a female wants to become a part of a particular group, all she has to do is initiate sex to the other females or males.
Thank you for providing the name!
I am quite disgusted by those who try to portray human sexuality as primarily focused on reproduction.
It is simply false; anyone who has been in a love affair knows quite well the range of emotions/situations in which it felt "right" to have sex.
Sex goes far beyond reproduction, and those who prefer to have consensual&non-reproductive sex (as gays prefer) should not be discriminated against.
(Just for the record, of the several hundred intercourses a man&wife have during their lives, nets only 1.7 offsprings in average..
Perhaps they have sex for other reasons?)
Thank you for providing the name!
I am quite disgusted by those who try to portray human sexuality as primarily focused on reproduction.
It is simply false; anyone who has been in a love affair knows quite well the range of emotions/situations in which it felt "right" to have sex.
Sex goes far beyond reproduction, and those who prefer to have consensual&non-reproductive sex (as gays prefer) should not be discriminated against.
(Just for the record, of the several hundred intercourses a man&wife have during their lives, nets only 1.7 offsprings in average..
Perhaps they have sex for other reasons?)
It's kind of ironic how I got that question wrong on an anthropology test, but oh, well. I learned it.
Anyway, I agree with you. It makes sense, really. I mean, what's the main reason people want to have sex? For the sheer pleasure of it. It's fun, as some would say.
For fun, comfort, tenderness, relaxation ..whatever.
Very rarely do persons go to bed in order to make a baby.
(This rather strange motive is probably the one getting a gay man and lesbian into the same bed occasionally..:wink:)
(This rather strange motive is probably the one getting a gay man and lesbian into the same bed occasionally..:wink:)
Exactly. They want to test the water. To see what it's about and if they like it. And if they do, they'll keep doing it.
olde drunk
Oct2-04, 12:33 PM
several hundred intercourses????
that would drive me to drink!!!
love&peace,
olde drunk
I think it is. Gay people trend to do what organism suppose not do. organism should **** the opposite sex.
Yes, you're right on the sexual sense in terms of healthy human proliferation.
But in terms of the full human sense, they are more like every other human significantly. Why? Sex is not what we do all day long. If you count all the human activities of every human accross the planet over a day and divide that by the number of humans you'll find the ratio with someone who is gay is not very far off, because sex accounts for a small part of everybodies minutes of the day, so they are more like us than not like us most of the time, based on the average count of their human behavior.
Sex is a private matter to most humans most of the time, and their sex really is none of our business. It's private minutes, not public minutes for the most part.
Mattius_
Oct2-04, 02:50 PM
A good indicator about if it has much to do with genetics is looking at sets of identical twins? If one is gay and the other is not on a large scale of twins then maybe it has less to do with genetics than we think.
The converse, however, will not give a lot of information..
"Yes, you're right on the sexual sense in terms of healthy human proliferation."
No, he is not.
Dayle Record
Oct2-04, 03:54 PM
If homosexuality were a negative genetic trait, there would be no homosexuals. It seems to be a somewhat steady state in our species, in terms of percentages.
Our environment is getting more contaminated with estrogen imitators, by the day. It is no wonder that obesity is on the rise, I wonder if the feminization of our environment, will raise the rate of homosexuality?
For the record I don't consider homosexuality a disease, any more than I would consider red-headedness to be a disease. Do you suppose there are more gay people than there are natural red-headed people?
Tom McCurdy
Oct2-04, 05:24 PM
1) The word is spelled 'disease.'
2) A disease is a condition which causes the bearer of the disease discomfort or physical harm. Homosexuality causes neither of these.
- Warren
in this sense of the definition could one interpt it to be that homosexuality causes the bearer discomfort in the sense of having to deal with a largly heterosexual public who isn't always nice about being "gay" Also in school being gay can very well cause you physical harm... so I guess in one interpatation according to your definiton it would be... but then so would a lot of other things ... like being short
in this sense of the definition could one interpt it to be that homosexuality causes the bearer discomfort in the sense of having to deal with a largly heterosexual public who isn't always nice about being "gay" Also in school being gay can very well cause you physical harm... so I guess in one interpatation according to your definiton it would be... but then so would a lot of other things ... like being short
Under this criterion, being smart would also qualify as a disease. Perhaps this criterion ought to be jettisoned. Further, in very tolerant places (here in Seattle, San Fransisco, etc), homosexuals may completely avoid any discomfort caused directly by others' intolerance. We don't want a criterion according to which whether homosexuality counts as a disease will be contingent upon where one happens to live.
Actually, I think chroot's definiton is quite good.
It is not the condition of homosexuality as such which is the causative agent of broken teeth; that's the guy who punched your face in.
Tom McCurdy
Oct2-04, 09:39 PM
Dictionary.com
dis·ease ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-zz)
n.
A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.
Websters:
2 : a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning : SICKNESS, MALADY
3 : a harmful development (
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease
under these definitions almost anything could be interpeted as a disease
russ_watters
Oct3-04, 06:00 PM
Excuse me? I think you'd have to explain this a bit. If you mean "it prevents a person from having a biological child," you're wrong. You got it - but no, I'm not wrong. Certainly, I'll explain: Or, like the appendix or blue eyes, it will stay around forever, because it does not actually provide any negative selection pressure. Well, obviously blue eyes doesn't have "any negative selection pressure" associated with it. The appendix maybe - appendicitis. That may take a while to weed-out though.
But for the "negative selection pressure" of homosexuality, its quite simple - someone who chooses to have homosexual sex instead of heterosexual sex isn't going to have offspring. Its really that simple. Sure, in today's day and age, a homosexual can choose to have heterosexual sex just for procreation (do many actually do that?) or choose to have artificial insemination, but how many do that? Do homosexuals, in reality, procreate as often as heterosexuals? In the animal kingdom, do homosexual animals procreate as often as heterosexual ones?
Homosexuality doesn't have to totally eliminate procreation to be a negative selection pressure - it only has to reduce it just a little (and, I rather suspect, homosexuality reduces procreation more than just a little).
As for the characterization of this as a disease, perhaps impotence was a bad example: it has more than one cause. I was thinking in terms of a psychological cause. Heck, if homosexuality were to prevent a gay man from getting an erection and having sex with a woman, that'd work fine for my analogy.
There are all sorts of other psychological disorders, though that interfere with a person's ability to procreate. "Social anxiety disorder" basically is a fear of social interaction that makes people become hermits. Someone who avoids social interaction will have less of a chance of procreating than someone who is charismatic and social. Your argument is based on the idea that some subset of the population has a "gay gene" and doesn't reproduce, while all the rest of us don't have the "gay gene" and do reproduce. This is fallacious logic. Obviously, if heterosexual women can beget homosexual childen, the "gay gene" resides in the heterosexual population, too, like the genes for other genetic traits like blue eyes. Blue eyes is a recessive trait, thats why it resides in people (like me) who have brown eyes. But again, if having blue eyes interfered with your reproduction, they'd eventually be filtered out of the gene pool.
This is why I do not believe that homosexuality is simply a normal genetic variation like blue eyes. If it were, it would have been filtered out by now. I realize, thats not a popular view. People want to think its "normal." If it turns out that there is no gay gene and homosexuality is instead a result of fetal hormonal environment, it means that any child, regardless of genotype, could potentially become homosexual. It's effectively the heterosexual mother's "fault," since she provided the fetal hormonal environment. Could be - would that make it a birth defect? Rarely are all of a women's children homosexual, however. Even if a woman is capable of causing the fetal hormonal environment that leads to homosexual children, she is also capable of having heterosexual offspring, and thus it provides her no evolutionary disadvantage. If normal, healthy heterosexual women can spontaneously have homosexual offspring, it essentially means that homosexuals have been around forever, and will continue to be around forever. That is, in essence, my view. But then, doesn't that mean we should try to investigate the particulars of this "fetal hormonal environment" so we can try to prevent it from happening? Perhaps its associated with a certain diet or chemical or whatever.... This is consistent with thousands of years of demographics -- homosexuality has been around since antiquity, and likely will always comprise a segment of the population. There are a lot of traits of humans that have been around "since antiquity" - that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate (fix?) some of them.
Philocrat
Oct3-04, 08:31 PM
I think it is. Gay people trend to do what organism suppose not do. organism should **** the opposite sex.
I was raised in a family where every man was taught to love women as human beings, reproductive agents, and lovers. I still keep this position and so it shall remain. Now to answer your question. It is impossible to call being gay a disease unless you are willing to show us the evidence. For there is nothing which logically rules out being straight also being a disease. This problem that people have is when it comes to defining the notion of 'NORMALITY'. I think you people are blaming the gay people for something that is entire Nature's. No one controls what they turn out to be as far as reproduction is concerned. One moment Nature tells us that things are this way, and ought to be this way, then upon the blinking of an eye, the same Nature turns around and tells us that, by the way, things could have been otherwise.
The BIG Question:
-----------------------------------------------
Why would Nature provide us with the so-called 'NORMAL CAUSAL PATHWAYS, while at the same time leaving 'POTENTIAL AND ALTERNATIVE CAUSAL PATHWAYS wide open?
-----------------------------------------------
This is the hard-headed question that those who argue in ignorance must provide conrete answer without any shaky foundation.
NOTE: The availability of Alternative Causal and Mutational Pathways in the underlying structure of the world is a contradiction of what is supposedly normal.
Philocrat
Oct3-04, 08:56 PM
On the issue of replacing future populations by the supposedly 'NORMAL WAY' of using women to reproduce, well, with the current pace of technological developments in biological science, especially in the genetic engineering discipline, this may very well become obsolete, if not aleady is. Women themselves, who are also increasingly turning to homosexualism, may very soon find new roles to play. Nothing rules out a Conveyer-belt reproductive model subsequently emerging from this discipline. Disease or no disease, Let's just wait and see.
russ_watters
Oct3-04, 10:24 PM
I think you people are blaming the gay people for something that is entire Nature's. No one controls what they turn out to be as far as reproduction is concerned. No one here has said anything of the sort. Yes, I know: gays don't choose to be gay - everything I (and others) have said has been about natural causes. You cannot turn this into a gay-bashing thread because no one is doing it.
That said, given a choice ahead of time, how many pregnant women would choose to have gay children? Straight children? Given a choice, how many gays would be straight? Straights gay? It is impossible to call being gay a disease unless you are willing to show us the evidence. For there is nothing which logically rules out being straight also being a disease. Well, there is a difference, which I pointed out: reproductive problems. This problem that people have is when it comes to defining the notion of 'NORMALITY'. In this context, I define "normal" as feelings and behaviors which lead to reproduction: Ie heterosexual desires leading to heterosexual sex leading to procreation. Homosexual feelings lead to homosexual sex, which does not lead to procreation.
Philocrat
Oct3-04, 10:36 PM
No one here has said anything of the sort. Yes, I know: gays don't choose to be gay - everything I (and others) have said has been about natural causes. You cannot turn this into a gay-bashing thread because no one is doing it.
That said, given a choice ahead of time, how many pregnant women would choose to have gay children? Straight children? Given a choice, how many gays would be straight? Straights gay? Well, there is a difference, which I pointed out: reproductive problems. In this context, I define "normal" as feelings and behaviors which lead to reproduction: Ie heterosexual desires leading to heterosexual sex leading to procreation. Homosexual feelings lead to homosexual sex, which does not lead to procreation.
I think you should read my next posting on what I think about reproduction. On my first posting, I am merely stating the philosophical implications of what the whole argument is up against.
Homosexuallity is a social group. It can be influenced by peer preasure. In china, Male children were more desireable than female children for economic reasons and you were limited in the number of offspring you could have. With modern science, parents soon were able to choose the sex of their childern. Obviously, males were chosen over females. This resulted in a large increase in males. With this, you saw a direct increase in the number of homosexual males. Simply put, there were not enough women to go around so they turned to each other.
If homosexualitiy were genetic, the parents must have all contracted the disease in order to spread it to their childern. Another posibility is that somehow genetic mutations occured throughout a large group of people with nothing in common. Both of these are highly unlikely.
In America, it seems the more we see of homosexuals, the more people become homosexuals. People waking up in the morining after watching "Queer Eye For the Stright Guy" and realizing they were gay all their life, but never knew it until the TV told them.
It is my predection that once the shock value of homosexuallity subsides, and they realize its not much diffrent emotionally than heterosexuallity, then you will se a decline in the number of homosexuals.
Heterosexuallity is a very compedative thing. Men fighting for women. women fighting for men. If you are not able to keep up compedatively, its understandable that you might give up. Homosexuals are more sympathetic toward other homosexuals simply because there are so few of them they feel compelled to help each other. This is a common social event. In school, the "geeks" will always group together usually not becuase they have something in common, but because they are seen by the rest as diffrent. In my high school, there were only a handful of African American students. All of them grouped together as friends. Their interests probably would have placed them in other groups, but because tey were a minority, they choose each other instead.
As for the comments about nature. There is nothing natrual about it. As humans we have instincts and logic. Instint tells us to have sex. Logic tells us to have sex with the opposite sex. Its a lot easier to override our logic than to override our instinct.
A good question is why women do not have as large an increase in homosexuallity as men do? I think this is because women, in general, do not have as great of sex drive as men do. And likewise are not as compedative. Also, homosexuallity in women is not at shunned as homosexuallity in men. Therefore there is sense of pressure behind choosing a sexual preference. A man with a low sex drive might be easily preasured into homosexuality simply because he does not compete as other men do. Something like a self-realizing prophecy.
selfAdjoint
Oct4-04, 09:48 AM
If homosexualitiy were genetic, the parents must have all contracted the disease in order to spread it to their childern. Another posibility is that somehow genetic mutations occured throughout a large group of people with nothing in common. Both of these are highly unlikely.
This does not agree with what is known about genetics. First, genes are not "caught" like a cold. Second a gene doesn't need widespread simultaneous mutation to spread through a population, mating and meiosis will do it. However it is true that a gene will not maintain itself in a population without confering some advantage some way. Sickle-cell anemia, for example confers some resistance to malaria on those who have one copy of the gene and is only fatal to those with two copies. Rather a brutal advantage, but of course nature doesn't care.
So what would be the advantage of a hypothetical gay gene? I can't help but note the high concentration of gay individuals in the arts. Does gayness confer creativity? Or just a culturally mediated off center imagination? That the mechanism factors through culture wouldn't contradict a genetic source; the advantage just has to work out.
Sigh.. I don't know people. Are we scientists here or just faking it? Look at the evidence objectively and it tells you that it's not a genetic predisposition.
If it is genetic, why is it just now becoming an issue? Why were there no gay people 1000 years ago? Why is it that so many people now "discover" they are gay, when it wasn't the case even 100 yeares ago? It's a social issue, not a genetic one. A lot of gay people try to insist that it's a genetic problem. Show me the research identifying the "Gay gene". Sure someone can have unsually high levels of estrogen or whatever, but It's a social choice. Even heterosexuality is a choice. Granted we are gentically predisposed to it for procreation needs, but it is still a social choice.
Aquamarine
Oct4-04, 11:56 AM
Homosexuality as one end of a bisexual continuum
Some people who are in general heterosexual may have mild or occasional interest in members of their own sex. They are often referred to as bi-curious. Conversely, many people who identify themselves as homosexual, or who might prefer homosexual activities or relationships, have engaged in heterosexual activities or even have long-term heterosexual relationships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual
Bisexuality could be a very advantageous trait. Maybe bisexuals more easily understand what the opposite sex finds attractive. And maybe they get more opportunities to get skilled in the reproductive game. Then bisexuality would be like one copy of the sickle-cell gene, pure homosexuality would be like two copies.
Why were there no gay people 1000 years ago?
There have been gay people since antiquity. The ancient Greeks, for example, were quite openly fond of "man-boy" relationships. History is full of accounts of homosexual people, including military leaders and even royalty.
Why is it that so many people now "discover" they are gay, when it wasn't the case even 100 yeares ago?
Neither homosexuality itself nor its prevalence have changed much over those hundred years. Our society's acceptance of it, on the other hand, has changed remarkably. In the past, homosexuals were so firmly ostracised for their sexuality that some, like von Neumann, even took to suicide as the alternative. It is most certainly not entirely a social issue, and it is incredibly ignorant of you to assert that it is one. There are certainly social ramifications of sexual preference -- for example, legions of teenaged American girls have recently pierced their navels and declared themselves bisexual for probably no reasons deeper than peer pressure and social status -- but there are plenty of people who are homosexual despite every desire they might have to be heterosexual. The girls who smear on strawberry lip gloss and kiss other girls in nightclubs in front of cheering men are a recent phenomonon, and are almost certainly not homosexual.
Show me the research identifying the "Gay gene". Sure someone can have unsually high levels of estrogen or whatever, but It's a social choice. Even heterosexuality is a choice.
You apparently are not familiar with the research conducted in the last decade. As it happens, heterosexual and homosexual brains are actually measurably different -- if I recall correctly, the hippocampi differ enough in morphology that a heterosexual brain and a homosexual brain are distinguishable on an MRI. While these brain differences may be either the cause or the effect of homosexuality, it certainly highlights the truth that homosexuality is not a choice.
- Warren
here's one for you homophobes: I've heard this statistic on many occassions: that supposedly we all have bisexual tendencies in us, to one degree or another. Call it "curiosity". But maybe that's just another urban legend.
Please, also note:
Do you CHOOSE feeling attraction to a girl?
Do you weigh pro's and con's before DECIDING whether to fall in love with her?
Don't post silly ideas about choice.
Homosexual (or heterosexual) emotions are NOT choices, practices are.
here's one for you homophobes: I've heard this statistic on many occassions: that supposedly we all have bisexual tendencies in us, to one degree or another. Call it "curiosity". But maybe that's just another urban legend.
Actually, it's a generally-recognized fact of human psychology.
I'm confused, though Zanta, because your previous post actually led me to believe that you are a homophobe.
- Warren
There have been gay people since antiquity. The ancient Greeks, for example, were quite openly fond of "man-boy" relationships. History is full of accounts of homosexual people, including military leaders and even royalty.
pointed noted.
Neither homosexuality itself nor its prevalence have changed much over those hundred years. Our society's acceptance of it, on the other hand, has changed remarkably. In the past, homosexuals were so firmly ostracised for their sexuality that some, like von Neumann, even took to suicide as the alternative. It is most certainly not entirely a social issue, and it is incredibly ignorant of you to assert that it is one. There are certainly social ramifications of sexual preference -- for example, legions of teenaged American girls have recently pierced their navels and declared themselves bisexual for probably no reasons deeper than peer pressure and social status -- but there are plenty of people who are homosexual despite every desire they might have to be heterosexual. The girls who smear on strawberry lip gloss and kiss other girls in nightclubs in front of cheering men are a recent phenomonon, and are almost certainly not homosexual.
Nor is it entirely an issue of gentics, as it is an issue steeped within social traditions and conceptions. There are tons of documented cases of people who were openly straight for long periods of time and suddenly "switched" there are tons of documented cases of people who were traumatized by people of the opposite sex who "became" gay after the those intial experiences. So then you have seperate gay people into 2 categories- those who claim they were "born that way" and those who were initially straight, and "became gay" due to traumatic circumstances or environmental influence. Research into this area is sketchy at best, and I'd like to scrutinize ANY supposedly scientific studies that show this to be a gentic influence.
I'll say it again- show me the gay gene, or acknowledge that you have no SOLID proof. Studies are very easily influenced, as has been shown on this board many times over.[/QUOTE]
You apparently are not familiar with the research conducted in the last decade. As it happens, heterosexual and homosexual brains are actually measurably different -- if I recall correctly, the hippocampi differ enough in morphology that a heterosexual brain and a homosexual brain are distinguishable on an MRI. While these brain differences may be either the cause or the effect of homosexuality, it certainly highlights the truth that homosexuality is not a choice.
- Warren
equating some variations on an MRI with homosexuality is akin to saying that someone saw a meteor heading in the general direction of earth, so the world is going to end. There could be many many reasons for the differences. Someone is tainting the results to show what they want them to, not to be objective.
olde drunk
Oct4-04, 01:07 PM
Sigh.. I don't know people. Are we scientists here or just faking it? Look at the evidence objectively and it tells you that it's not a genetic predisposition.
If it is genetic, why is it just now becoming an issue? Why were there no gay people 1000 years ago? Why is it that so many people now "discover" they are gay, when it wasn't the case even 100 yeares ago? It's a social issue, not a genetic one. A lot of gay people try to insist that it's a genetic problem. Show me the research identifying the "Gay gene". Sure someone can have unsually high levels of estrogen or whatever, but It's a social choice. Even heterosexuality is a choice. Granted we are gentically predisposed to it for procreation needs, but it is still a social choice.
ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! EVER READ A HISTORY BOOK ABOUT THE LEADERS THAT WANTED YOUNG BOYS?? - I believe several ceasars were homos.
gimme a break. wish i was gay so that i would have a list of all the historical people that were gay.
you call yourself a scientist? turn in your slide rule!
olde drunk
Actually, it's a generally-recognized fact of human psychology.
I'm confused, though Zanta, because your previous post actually led me to believe that you are a homophobe.
- Warren
warren you can be an *** but I'll just be one right back to you. read my last post and show me the facts- I want documented PROOF that there exists a gene that makes you gay. Anything else is pure speculation.
I think it's funny you saying that, because I have friends and relatives who are gay, and I support them all the way. Explain to me in your esteemed OBJECTIVE manner how you equate my view on why people are gay with homophobia. Still waiting for that proof you claim to have buddy.. take your time.
olde drunk
Oct4-04, 01:24 PM
Ok, so it is an harmonal imbalance. what triggered the imbalance within the body? everything goes back to our genes. a pre-disposition, in my opinion, is not the same as being genetically male or female. to me a predisposion is more of a tendency. much like being suseptible to alchohol. some drink and walk away, some want to drink and never stop.
sorry for my prior outburst. one of my best friends is gay and i have seen the burden he carries. it is a shame that society is unwilling to accept homosexuality as natural.
love&peace,
olde drunk
Nor is it entirely an issue of gentics, as it is an issue steeped within social traditions and conceptions.
There's no need to make this point again; I already agreed the first time. There are certainly plenty of people who are not "really" gay yet claim to be. You can show me as many cases of this as you'd like, but it doesn't prove your argument (that homosexuality is societal). All I need to do is show you one person who is "really" homosexual yet claims not to be to prove my argument (that homosexuality is not entirely societal). There are many such people, and your argument is therefore falsified by contradiction. Be careful with your sweeping qualifiers.
Research into this area is sketchy at best, and I'd like to scrutinize ANY supposedly scientific studies that show this to be a gentic influence.
I suppose you're free to have your own definition of "sketchy," but there have been a wide variety of quite reputable studies of homosexuality which indicate that it has far deeper origins than social interaction.
I'll say it again- show me the gay gene, or acknowledge that you have no SOLID proof. Studies are very easily influenced, as has been shown on this board many times over.
I never said I had solid proof that it's genetic. And why are you demanding solid proof (in capitals, no less!) for my (presumed) arguments, when you do not (and indeed cannot) provide solid proof for your own?
equating some variations on an MRI with homosexuality is akin to saying that someone saw a meteor heading in the general direction of earth, so the world is going to end.
This seems to just be a non-sequitor. I have no idea how one might actually compare asteroid-impact studies with sexual-orientation studies, so I'm not really going to try. This seems to be an argument by assertion -- another logical fallacy.
There could be many many reasons for the differences. Someone is tainting the results to show what they want them to, not to be objective.
As I explicitly stated, no one is sure whether the brain differences are the cause or the effect. A scientific theory such as homosexuality is a characterisable neurological phenomenon cannot by its nature ever be absolutely proven, but it seems there is mounting evidence in its support.
- Warren
warren you can be an *** but I'll just be one right back to you. read my last post and show me the facts- I want documented PROOF that there exists a gene that makes you gay. Anything else is pure speculation.
Why are you demanding such proof? You are the one making the silly unqualified assertions here.
I'll turn it back on you: I want documented PROOF that a gay gene does NOT exist. Anything else you say is pure speculation.
- Warren
Ok I've acknowledge the historical context, which isn't even the point of my post, so let's move past that.
The botom line is that there isn't any irrefutable proof EITHER WAY. Only speculation. THat means it's still open to debate. Saying I'm homophobic just because I don't agree with your POV isn't constructive. So let's move past that.
There is certainly a great deal of evidence that it is not purely societal, and that was my only point.
The rigor of the word "proof" precludes its use in this context, and you should refrain from using it. Proofs exist in systems with well-defined axioms, like mathematics. Proofs don't exist in social science, or, for that matter, in any science. Let's restrict our attention to the mountain of evidence and which side of the fence it's on.
- Warren
There's no need to make this point again; I already agreed the first time. There are certainly plenty of people who are not "really" gay yet claim to be. You can show me as many cases of this as you'd like, but it doesn't prove your argument (that homosexuality is societal). All I need to do is show you one person who is "really" homosexual yet claims not to be to prove my argument (that homosexuality is not entirely societal). There are many such people, and your argument is therefore falsified by contradiction. Be careful with your sweeping qualifiers.
So now you're presuming to tell someone they are gay, weather they believe it or not? Interesting. I may be gay, and not even know it! Maybe we're all gay and just in denial? There I go "sweeping" again.. hehe
I suppose you're free to have your own definition of "sketchy," but there have been a wide variety of quite reputable studies of homosexuality which indicate that it has far deeper origins than social interaction.
This isn't the first argument on this topic, and I believe in the past, the majority of studies presented turned out to be funded by right wing fundamentalist groups or organizations with religious affilations... hardly what I'd call objective- so if that's you're evidence, then just paint me a hardcore skeptic.
I never said I had solid proof that it's genetic. And why are you demanding solid proof (in capitals, no less!) for my (presumed) arguments, when you do not (and indeed cannot) provide solid proof for your own?
So it would seem then, that your position isn't on much firmer ground than mine is. I'd assume you'd require equally stringent proof from my that it's a social behavior, so I expect no less. At this point it's all a matter of opinion. IF it isn't, then by all means lets move this topic to the biology forums where it belongs.
This seems to just be a non-sequitor. I have no idea how one might actually compare asteroid-impact studies with sexual-orientation studies, so I'm not really going to try. This seems to be an argument by assertion -- another logical fallacy.
ok let's pretend you didn't get my analogy. Bottom line is that MRI's can be miread, or interpreted in many different ways, and it would be a small task for someone to say "oh it means this".
As I explicitly stated, no one is sure whether the brain differences are the cause or the effect. A scientific theory such as homosexuality is a characterisable neurological phenomenon cannot by its nature ever be absolutely proven, but it seems there is mounting evidence in its support.
- Warren
There's mounting support for M theory too, but no one's rewritten physics books just yet. That is why it's a working theory. I"m just trying to explore alternative explanations. I didn't the topic was already set in stone.
Ok, so it is an harmonal imbalance. what triggered the imbalance within the body? everything goes back to our genes. a pre-disposition, in my opinion, is not the same as being genetically male or female. to me a predisposion is more of a tendency. much like being suseptible to alchohol. some drink and walk away, some want to drink and never stop.
sorry for my prior outburst. one of my best friends is gay and i have seen the burden he carries. it is a shame that society is unwilling to accept homosexuality as natural.
love&peace,
olde drunk
An imbalance in estrogen or testosterone is a pefectly valid theory which I'm willing to entertain. However you can't discount the social impact that comes with being gay. Or the traumatic experiences of people who didn't consider themselves gay prior to those experiences. It may be that it's a combination of variables, or that there are gentically gay people AND socially gay people. The jury's still out last I checked.
I would also want to point out a misconception that you seem to have. Just because I believe that being gay comes from social influences, doesn't mean that I'm homophobic, or against homosexuality. I think that's a stigma that's attached to anyone who thinks homosexuality isn't genetic. It may or may not be a correct assumption, but in my case, it's not. If it is a social behavior, it doesn't mean that it's a wrong behavior. We as human being set the bar for right and wrong. Right and wrong is only a matter of perception.
Zantra:
Do you think that it is necessarily TRAUMATIC experiences which causes "social gayness"?
So now you're presuming to tell someone they are gay, weather they believe it or not? Interesting. I may be gay, and not even know it! Maybe we're all gay and just in denial? There I go "sweeping" again.. hehe
No. I meant that there are many people who feel internally that they are homosexual, yet suppress it and behave as ("claim to be") heterosexuals.
I believe in the past, the majority of studies presented turned out to be funded by right wing fundamentalist groups or organizations with religious affilations... hardly what I'd call objective- so if that's you're evidence, then just paint me a hardcore skeptic.
This might be true, but I don't know. I'll be the first to admit that I am not a social scientist, and I do not know who funded which papers. I think you're offering it just as an attempt to discredit all such studies, since they seem to uniformly disagree with you.
All I said is that the studies I know, such as the brain-morphology study, indicate that there is at least some kind of physiological difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. It seems logical (though not certain) that social interactions do not change brain morphology. If this evidence is valid, it would indicate that homosexuality is not entirely societal, which was your initial assertion to which I objected.
'd assume you'd require equally stringent proof from my that it's a social behavior, so I expect no less.
I don't believe there is such thing as "stringent proof" in social science. Please refrain from assuming what I mean, and then attacking strawmen.
Bottom line is that MRI's can be miread, or interpreted in many different ways, and it would be a small task for someone to say "oh it means this".
This is true of just about every scientific experiment. It does not inherently discredit the value of scientific experiments.
I didn't the topic was already set in stone.
You made a strong statement that indicated you, in fact, did think it was set in stone: "Sigh... It's a social issue, not a genetic one." If you'd like to retract that statement in light of your further consideration, go ahead.
- Warren
Aquamarine
Oct4-04, 02:46 PM
The "Crime Against Nature"
Sodomy has been stigmatized for century upon century, and in many cultures across the world and through time, mostly seeking to stigmatize relationships between members of the same sex. Almost invariably, when it is criminalized, those who criminalize it (or would do so) refer to it as the "crime against nature" or the "sin against nature." The presumption is that homosexual behavior is a perversion, and a uniquely human perversion, engaged in as the result of what is presumed to be a learned attraction to members of the same sex.
There's only one problem with that assumption: None of it is true.
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
Zantra:
Do you think that it is necessarily TRAUMATIC experiences which causes "social gayness"?
I think that it is one of several characterizations that can be used, on a case by case basis. I think there are instances where the subject would characterize thier own experience as negative, leading to feelings of resentment and fear of the opposite sex. Is it the rule? no. are there documented cases where "traumatize" is a valid characterization? yes.
I think I've come across in the wrong way, so let me clarify again so there's no misunderstanding. I believe that there's no solid scientific proof that being gay is either hereditary or social. I'm sure that strong arguments can be made from either viewpoint, and I myself could present a case for either argument. However I do think there are certain people here who have already made up thier minds on the topic, based on the available evidence.
Some of you approach the debate by attacking every minute fact I present, avoiding the true topic, so for future reference, please try to compile all of your points into a single post so I don't get writers cramp :yuck:
Yes I concede that homosexuality has a long history. No, I'm not homophobic or antigay. No I don't believe the topic is set in stone, No I don't think it's a "disease" and yes, I do learn towards the social aspects because genetics cannot explain every single case.
I hope that clears it up for everyone. Everyone seems so smug in thier certainty that it's a genetic issue. So if it is, fantics will doubtlessly advocate genetic engineering to "eliminate" the gay disposition. So you see, you can put a negative spin on this, weather it's a genetic OR a social issue. It swings both ways.
Just to clarify on my part:
Whatever one's view on the etiology of homosexuality, it cannot be denied that
consensual, homosexual practice :
a) Is (/might be) fully consistent with an egalitarian morality
b) Provides warmth, joy and well-being for those wanting to engage in it.
Hence, however one looks at it, finding the "cause of homosexuality" should have no bearing on our MORAL evaluation of the practice.
russ_watters
Oct4-04, 03:43 PM
Everyone seems so smug in thier certainty that it's a genetic issue. So if it is, fantics will doubtlessly advocate genetic engineering to "eliminate" the gay disposition. So you see, you can put a negative spin on this, weather it's a genetic OR a social issue. It swings both ways. Just to make my position perfectly clear, I was only arguing that "gayness" (as someone else put it) is not a 'normal genetic variation' (ie blue eyes). I wasn't arguing that is anything, with the caveat that if it is harmful in any way (and, it appears clear to me that it is), it can reasonably be considered a "disease". Whether the cause is a common genetic defect, fetal environment, social pressure, or even lack of vitamins remains a very much open question.
Aquamarine
Oct4-04, 04:01 PM
Just to make my position perfectly clear, I was only arguing that "gayness" (as someone else put it) is not a 'normal genetic variation' (ie blue eyes). I wasn't arguing that is anything, with the caveat that if it is harmful in any way (and, it appears clear to me that it is), it can reasonably be considered a "disease". Whether the cause is a common genetic defect, fetal environment, social pressure, or even lack of vitamins remains a very much open question.
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
As this links shows, bi- and homosexuality is very common in other species. This could not be the case if there was no advantage to this spectrum. The most likely explanation is that bisexuality gives a clear advantage in the competition for mates. So it cannot be considered a harmful disease, even if one views it only in terms of "survival of the fittest".
the number 42
Oct4-04, 05:32 PM
The latest evidence points to homosexuality and bisexuality being the result of exposure to elevated prenatal testosterone levels. Social psychological explanations - valid in other areas - are defunct here.
How we, as society, use this information is another issue entirely.
Homosexuality is strictly caused by the environment they have been raised in, and the people with the most influence on them. It is not a gene. It has been studied for years, and not one scientist found valid proof for this. Homosexuality, whether it is women or men, is either the foolish experimentation of the sex drive, or emotional harm leading to sexual confusion.
What a load of crap. If homosexuality was strictly caused by the environment, then dizygotic twins raised together should show the same incidence of homosexuality as monozygotic twins raised together. But this is not the case, as twin studies on the subject have clearly shown. The incidence among monozygotic twins is much higher than that of dizygotic twins. I love to see politics masquerading as science in a forum dedicated to physics. :confused:
Twistedseer
Oct23-04, 10:30 AM
warren you can be an *** but I'll just be one right back to you. read my last post and show me the facts- I want documented PROOF that there exists a gene that makes you gay. Anything else is pure speculation.
1993 Dean Hammer
"discovered a gene that linked to the predisposition of men being homosexual"
Twistedseer
Impossible?
Oct30-04, 03:33 PM
Surely homosexuality is a benefit, as instead of having children of there own, if wanted, they can adopt, therefore producing a stable beneficial environment to the next generation. If they do not want children, homosexuality simply prevents unwanted offspring.
Thallium
Nov1-04, 02:25 PM
Someone mentioned that Chimps have sex with one another, females, males, and SPECIFICALLY: mother and son. When it should be acceptable that human men and women have sex with their own gender because that is the case in the animal world, then why is not incest acceptable? As long as it happens between two consenting adults, for instance a 20 year old son and his 45 year old mother, it is okay? Answer that!
Thallium
Nov1-04, 02:28 PM
What a load of crap. If homosexuality was strictly caused by the environment, then dizygotic twins raised together should show the same incidence of homosexuality as monozygotic twins raised together.
Yes. And I could promise myself on New Year's Eve: Next year I will become a lesbian! No one can do that. Yeah, let's start tomorrow! :yuck:
the number 42
Nov7-04, 03:19 PM
Someone mentioned that Chimps have sex with one another, females, males, and SPECIFICALLY: mother and son. When it should be acceptable that human men and women have sex with their own gender because that is the case in the animal world, then why is not incest acceptable? As long as it happens between two consenting adults, for instance a 20 year old son and his 45 year old mother, it is okay? Answer that!
Damn good question! What would Freud say?
selfAdjoint
Nov7-04, 09:10 PM
Someone mentioned that Chimps have sex with one another, females, males, and SPECIFICALLY: mother and son. When it should be acceptable that human men and women have sex with their own gender because that is the case in the animal world, then why is not incest acceptable? As long as it happens between two consenting adults, for instance a 20 year old son and his 45 year old mother, it is okay? Answer that!
OK by whom? It's their business, not mine, and I suspect the Supreme Court (in their recent privacy decision) agree with me.
Besides:
This doesn't hold water as a "counter"-argument:
A fundamental premise, usually unstated, in the consenting adults view, is that BOTH parties can be regarded to be mentally SANE/having no serious mental illness impairing their RATIONAL judgment.
Now, what this means in practice for adults is that in cases of doubt, we must seek to establish a psychological profile of the person, based upon his capacity to exercise "normal" adult functions, like the capacity to initiate/hold on to friendships, being able to hold on a job, controlling temper/aggression control and so on.
It is completely without any doubt that gays are as functional adults as straights are.
That is, we cannot, in general, regard gays as mentally ill, whose actions as adults should be monitored/censored by society.
But what of your example?
Of all incest cases I've read about, there are severe psychological damages present which manifest themselves in a host of different ways.
That is, you have offered no evidence whatsoever that there exist large groups of incestuous individuals who must be regarded as mentally healthy.
Hence, the "consenting adults"-parallell doesn't hold, because there exist grave doubts as to whether such relations ever occur among mentally healthy adults.
selfAdjoint
Nov8-04, 08:39 AM
Hence, the "consenting adults"-parallell doesn't hold, because there exist grave doubts as to whether such relations ever occur among mentally healthy adults.
arildno, you are mixing up cases of adult on child incest, which of course can result in mental handicaps for the child in later life, with the case that was brought up and that I was discussing, of two adults who, not having had a prior history of incest, decide to practice it. I see no reason to presume they are less than fully competent.
As for the frequency of such encounters, we don't know it, and it's really irrelevant. How ever many there are, it's still those adults' own affair.
I'm not mixing up!
I am demanding evidence for the existence of mentally healthy adults who choose to involve themselves i.
The frequency is deeply relevant, because if it can be shown that the vast majority of such encounters are coupled with severe mental illness (and nothing we have suggest otherwise), we are fully entitled to regard these relationships as problematic.
It does not follow from this, of course,(and I haven't stated that anywhere), that GIVEN an individual case of fully consensual relationship between mentally healthy adults, intervention/prevention should occur.
What fully competent adults do, is their own affair, if competence is lacking, not necessarily any longer.
We DO have loads of evidence which show that gays are healthy, consenting adults; due to this fact, we cannot, in general, conclude that gay relationships are inferior to straight relationships.
As long as there exist no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, we are fully entitled to regard incestuous relationships as inferior/(more problematic than) to non-incestuous relationships.
Homosexuality is very obviously biochemical, a result of genetics, it's quite normal and very widespread. Why make such a fuss over so minor an aspect of human nature? If I sometimes prefer a girlfriend to my husband or he has a crush on one of the guys, so what? Perhaps I'll decide a crewcut, sweatshirt and jeans. Or he may enjoy shaving his legs, doing his nails and donning a really super posh frock and heels. Wow! Cute! Hey, I might like that. Gosh, all the labels ... all the push for normal ... I mean, like, hello, we're all on the same distribution curve. Get a life!
the number 42
Nov9-04, 06:38 PM
I'm not mixing up!
I am demanding evidence for the existence of mentally healthy adults who choose to involve themselves i.
Calm down. You are embarrassing yourself.
The frequency is deeply relevant, because if it can be shown that the vast majority of such encounters are coupled with severe mental illness (and nothing we have suggest otherwise), we are fully entitled to regard these relationships as problematic.
Maybe only the problematic cases get to be reported, whereas the majority of cases continue without a murmer.
What fully competent adults do, is their own affair, if competence is lacking, not necessarily any longer.
What? Only fully competent people can have sex? Darn!!! Gnnn!!!!
As long as there exist no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, we are fully entitled to regard incestuous relationships as inferior/(more problematic than) to non-incestuous relationships.
How are you going to provide counter-instances? Put an ad in the paper seeking people who are having "raunchy yet fully competent relationships with a parent" to turn up for a photoshoot?
What? Only fully competent people can have sex? Darn!!! Gnnn!!!!
Damn. I'm screwed, then.
kalladin
Nov11-04, 12:24 AM
I don't have enough free time to read through this thread, but could homosexuality be a result of our ever-increasing population? Could this be a way for mother nature to monitor our population on Earth and prevent it from becoming overly hazardous?
To me, since 10 years ago more people are "coming out" and saying they are homosexuals than before. Despite the increasing social acceptability of homosexuality, I believe that it is also increasing because people choose to be gay.
Could homosexuality only have developed due to our species' advanced brains?
I dunno if anyone has addressed this or not, if so a link would be superb :)
Thallium
Nov11-04, 12:33 PM
Homosexuality is very obviously biochemical, a result of genetics, it's quite normal and very widespread. Why make such a fuss over so minor an aspect of human nature? If I sometimes prefer a girlfriend to my husband or he has a crush on one of the guys, so what? Perhaps I'll decide a crewcut, sweatshirt and jeans. Or he may enjoy shaving his legs, doing his nails and donning a really super posh frock and heels. Wow! Cute! Hey, I might like that. Gosh, all the labels ... all the push for normal ... I mean, like, hello, we're all on the same distribution curve. Get a life!
Christ, which planet are you from? Ew!
Christ, which planet are you from? Ew!
You'd do well to ocassionally remind yourself that values differ between cultures, and between individuals. It's quite immature of you to pass judgement on other people just because they have different sexual interests than your own. Please grow up and realize there are more important things in life.
- Warren
Thallium
Nov11-04, 04:51 PM
I'd just like to call it freedom of speech. I could not hold back my reaction as that would have made me feel sick. Growing up..
Edit: I was not passing judgement. It was but a comment, an outburst, not a prison sentence.
LOL.. it's pretty obvious there are people in this thread a lot more homophobic than I am.
Anyhow, Everyone seems to think they have factors that lead to being gay figured out. Personally I think that there hasn't been any CONCLUSIVE proof put forward. And it may be that that it's due to both genetic and social factors. Some people "choose" to be gay, and some people are "born that way". Either way, it's best not to make any broad based assumptions, especially in a scientific forum like this.
Just the facts m'am, just the facts.
CeeAnne
Nov18-04, 06:57 PM
Thank you, Warren. I do appreciate support. My previous reply was intended to make a point and elicit response, which it seems to have done. Although I am not quite so promiscuous as my reply may lead some to believe, I am very openminded about such matters and do feel there are other much more important issues in our society.
And, Thallium, your responses are welcome and, in this instance, entertaining.
CharlesP
Nov30-04, 08:16 PM
Homosexuality is either genetic or chemical. It is completely determined by birth and is not significantly voluntary. The claim that it is psychological is religion based and has been denied by science. Homosexuality has been found in many animals and has been pronounced normal by the Association of Psychiatrists and Psychologists.
Tom McCurdy
Dec3-04, 12:18 AM
Homosexuality is either genetic or chemical. It is completely determined by birth and is not significantly voluntary. The claim that it is psychological is religion based and has been denied by science. Homosexuality has been found in many animals and has been pronounced normal by the Association of Psychiatrists and Psychologists.
Why does it have to be a black or white situation... I kind of think of it as something like how someone turns out... its genetics but you can't deny that your living environment does play some role. Some people can become gay... it just has to be true, because of some events in their life their opinions change. People may start out wired one way, but through experiences become rewired. Although I do believe birth probably is the biggest factor, I refuse to believe that it is the only factor.
Quite frankly, some of you scare me. Calling homosexuality a disease would imply that it has a 'cure', according to the National Mental Health Association, not only is there no cure, there is no need for one. To me the sickness that exists is people calling gayness a disease as a means to promote discrimination. http://www.nmha.org/whatdoesgaymean/questions.cfm
Could it be a possible evolutionary adaptation in a world that is becoming overpopulated? I don't know, but that would make sense, if it is necessary to explain why any one type of person exists at all. My brother was gay (he died in '93). He told me that he always knew he was attracted to men. He had girlfriends in high school because he was afraid of people finding out he was gay. He learned early on that conformity to what is perceived as being 'normal' keeps you from getting beaten up.
the number 42
Dec19-04, 07:15 PM
Quite frankly, some of you scare me. ... To me the sickness that exists is people calling gayness a disease as a means to promote discrimination. ...conformity to what is perceived as being 'normal' keeps you from getting beaten up.
A lot of boys go through of stage of saying "Girls? Ugh! I would never kiss a girl". I don't think that's called girlophobia or anything, but I think that in a similar way a lot of people just grow out of homophobia.
Could it be a possible evolutionary adaptation in a world that is becoming overpopulated?
Anything's possible, but I see plenty of reasons why one should think not.
Anyways, you might want to research actual statistics -- as I recall, there was plenty of evidence that homosexuality was not a purely genetic phenomenon.
I've also seen plenty of claims of cures for homosexuality as well, but aside from the success rates some programs have published, I've not seen any statistics on the topic.
the number 42
Dec20-04, 10:34 AM
... there was plenty of evidence that homosexuality was not a purely genetic phenomenon... I've also seen plenty of claims of cures for homosexuality as well...
Got plenty of references for these claims?
As for evidence homosexuality is not purely genetic, look to twin studies. A brief search yields:
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/twin.html
As for claims of curability, a brief search yields:
http://www.narth.com/
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/2/173
http://www.jefflindsay.com/gays.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/study.html
the number 42
Dec20-04, 05:49 PM
...there was plenty of evidence that homosexuality was not a purely genetic phenomenon..
"Purely" is an important qualifier here, as things in social science are rarely 100% nature or nurture.
...I've also seen plenty of claims of cures for homosexuality as well, but aside from the success rates some programs have published, I've not seen any statistics on the topic.
I'm sceptical of these claims. I am not familiar with the literature, but I have heard that the samples used are biased i.e. only those who have severe problems with being gay volunteer for such programs. Religious background is said to often be a factor here too. I note that most of the sites you gave have a definite interest in 'curing' homosexuality e.g. "This page is for people who don't want to be gay. If you are gay and don't want to change, please don't let me bother you" http://www.jefflindsay.com/gays.html
In such a controversial issue, its best to have more objective evidence on the table, preferably peer-reviewed scientific journals.
I say what I mean, and mean what I say. :smile:
The twin studies erode the foundation of much of homosexual activists' arguments -- that choice and environmental factors have little or nothing to do with homosexuality
I also don't see a problem with the "bias" here -- if programs really can "cure" homosexuals who want to be cured, that should be sufficient. It seems silly to also require such programs to cure those who don't want to be cured.
And from a metareasoning point of view, of all the information I remember reading on the topic, I don't recall seeing anything relatively recent that supports the conventional wisdom, which also raises a spectre of doubt.
the number 42
Dec21-04, 04:00 PM
The twin studies erode the foundation of much of homosexual activists' arguments -- that choice and environmental factors have little or nothing to do with homosexuality.
Is this a major pillar of gay activism? If it is, it shouldn't be. After all, why shouldn't someone choose to engage in sexual acts with someone of the same sex?
I also don't see a problem with the "bias" here -- if programs really can "cure" homosexuals who want to be cured, that should be sufficient. It seems silly to also require such programs to cure those who don't want to be cured.
I'm suspicious of the circular logic of the unstated assumption: 'if you can cure it, it must have been a disease'. People can be persuaded to change all sorts of behaviours that are not seen as pathological. If this were not the case then the advertising industry would collapse.
The bias is in the sample i.e. the people who volunteer are not a random selection of gay people, but are self-selected and highly motivated. The point is that you cannnot generalise findings from a biased sample to the larger population.
the number 42
Dec21-04, 04:02 PM
By the way, I liked this thread better when it was called 'Is gay a disease?', which seems more appropriately illiterate.
You're making a false dichotomy: denying "homosexuality cannot be 'cured'" is not synonymous with affirming "all homosexuals can be 'cured'".
the number 42
Dec21-04, 06:28 PM
You're making a false dichotomy: denying "homosexuality cannot be 'cured'" is not synonymous with affirming "all homosexuals can be 'cured'".
No, I was pointing out the circularity of the implicit assumption that just because a narrow sample of gay people might be somehow relieved of being gay, doesn't mean that they had a disease in the first place. Also that a change for some doesn't prescribe a change for all.
Now if you wanted to talk about cases of homosexuality that were verifiably pathological e.g. as an epiphenomenon of a psychological disorder, that might be interesting.
CharlesP
Jan25-05, 10:14 PM
Once again the medical folks consider it normal and so do Liberals.
How could it be otherwise since it has been found in monkeys and considered normal in pre christian literature.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.