Is Gayness a Disease or a Normal Variation of Human Behavior?

[cogito]

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.

 

[Twistedseer]

warren you can be an ass 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?]

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]

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]

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!

 

[bross7]

Is stupidity a disease?

 

[the number 42]

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]

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.

 

[arildno]

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]

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.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[CeeAnne]

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]

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?

 

[Chrono]

What? Only fully competent people can have sex? Darn! Gnnn!

Damn. I'm screwed, then.

 

[kalladin]

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 don't know if anyone has addressed this or not, if so a link would be superb :)

 

[Thallium]

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!

 

[chroot]

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]

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.

 

[Zantra]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ginaoh]

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 anyone 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]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

... 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?

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

...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.

 

[Hurkyl]

I say what I mean, and mean what I say.


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]

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.