The Classic Homosexuality Debate

[Darfius]

You're aware that nothing in science is ever PROVEN, right?

You're aware that the woman admitted that they could not speak at all to whether or not it was causation or correlation, right?

And there are certainly matters in science far more proven than "likely." Pick your battles.

[PsychGuy]

I really don't know what's funny...were you unaware of that research?

It contributes to my ability to participate in the conversation.

Not helpfully or constructively, however.

I certainly can't take you seriously at this point. Besides, your worldliness and placation doesn't contribute either.

"Worldliness" and "placation?" Simply because I believe homosexuality has a biological component? You really need to get out more, dude. Seriously.

A little boy acting like a little girl at a young age can simply mean that said little boy has been making some girly choices.

Again, I question the extent to which 3 year old children "make choices" about their gender and sexual identities. They simply do what comes most naturally and pleasurably to them.

Doesn't mean he "should have been born a girl."

And I certainly didn't claim that.

Even if it is granted that certain people are born with more passive temperaments, that doesn't show causation.

Depends what context you're referring to. In experiments where extraneous variables are controlled for, temperament is absolutely a cause of behavior.

It may increase the likelihood among twins for homosexuality, but conversely it could just make them seek out more masculine women.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that identical twins raised apart have a large likelihood of sharing their sexual orientation? I'm sure your skin is going to crawl at the word "likelihood," which I think is just further evidence of the fact that you don't comprehend the scientific method.

I've looked at some of the "literature", yes, but how is that relevant?

How is scientific literature on sexual orientation relevant? Really? Really??

Do I need to examine a "study" on genetic causes for mass murder or should I be able to determine beforehand based on other facts that the idea is inherently absurd?

Your one-dimensional thinking is really hard to break through, it seems. Why do people commit mass murder? Such people are what we might call sociopaths. In a clinical setting we might diagnose them with antisocial personality disorder. Have you heard of that? Are you aware that there is a genetic component to that?

I think it's also worth noting, because this might be part of why you're becoming indignant, that just because a behavior has a biological component to its origin doesn't make those behaviors moral, desirable, or eschew personal responsibility.

The gay gene will remain as elusive as the God gene and the murder gene because free will (gasp) exists.

And so does (gasp) biology/physiology. When you get past your dichotomous thinking maybe you'll have an easier time understanding what I'm saying.

The difference is that you went from the specific to the general. I freely admit that we are born sinful in a sinful world, but I vehemently deny that God would set us up to fail in any particular area biologically.

Then in what sense are we "born sinful?" If you believe physical death came about as punishment for the sin of Adam, surely you admit there's a biological component to the Fall?

That boy's dad did a bad job, if he was even present. Or the boy's mom smothered him and made him a little her. Or both.

But now you've switched the story from "personal choices" to parenting.

Obviously he wasn't born with a Barbie gene.

No, the Barbie is just one expression of femininity in Western culture. But he could have been born with a predisposition to opt for feminine stuff in general, however that's contrived in his culture.

I did not say "most" were. I was offering up molestation as part of the explanatory equation.

Based on the evidence I don't think its a part that has very substantial explanatory power. Other factors have much more prevalence.

Of course you can. Move to a different country and you can figure out what is considered culturally attractive and how to identify with it.

But if you move to Africa, you're not going to start liking tribesmen. You're going to start liking tribeswomen. Because you're heterosexual. That's not going to change. It's also not going to change for homosexuals.

Often it is a subconscious process, but it begins with the conscious decision to address one's particular sin head on, like all Christian growth. Homosexuals aren't sssssssspecial.

You're muddying the distinction between acts of sin and predispositions toward sin. See Little Shepherd's post.

You just contradicted yourself within two sentences. You're doing my arguing for me. The primary difference is that addictions are for the most part condemned by society while "sexual orientation" is accepted. So people have greater incentive to address their addictions.

No, that's not at all what I said. The primary difference is that alcoholics are NOT justified in their belief that their addiction is an unchangeable part of them, because we have tons of evidence that addictions can be successfully treated; on the other hand, a person IS justified in believing that their sexual orientation is an unchangeable part of them, because there is very little evidence that sexual orientation can change.

Name one.

Would you like addresses and phone numbers?

Physical attraction is a byproduct of personality attachment, but they do of course go hand-in-hand eventually.

It depends on the person, really. A lot of people really are physically attracted to their mates first. Getting to know them and appreciating their personality comes later. For others, they become physically attracted to people who they were friends with first.

Had you been raised by wolves, you would not have a "visceral, biological reaction" to women. Or if you did, it would probably be to eat them. Stop using Love, Actually as your proof.

I prefer Tarzan, thank you very much.

Seriously, I don't think even Skinner went as far as you're going here. Are you seriously claiming that all sexual attraction is learned?

My preference for American, heteorsexual women is a development based on my choices/perceived needs to begin with, and the variation among that group is due to more specification of perceived needs/choices, cultural norms and aesthetic preferences. The biological result only comes about after the psychological has been sufficiently reinforced.

Again, I disagree. You inherently prefer women over men because you're a heterosexual. No one taught you that. You didn't "choose" to be attracted to women. It just happens naturally. From there the field of what women you would seriously consider dating or marrying gets narrowed down based on individual preferences.

Nonsense. You just weren't observant enough to notice in what ways they were feminine and masculine respectively.

Oh for the love of Pete...I'm sorry, bud, but you're just wrong here. Everyone falls somewhere on the masculine/feminine spectrum. Straight men can be feminine. Straight women can be masculine. Gay men can be masculine. Gay women can be feminine. You could argue there might be a correlation between gay men and femininity, for example, but it's just not a universal. Come out to California and I'll introduce you to a few friends.

Do they begin from the presumption of evolution or creationism?



Do they begin from the presumption of evolution or creationism?

Most scientific institutions today ascribe to evolutionary theory. Are you really going to use that to discount any research that comes out that contradicts your worldview? "Oh, well they believe in evolution, so pssh, whatever..."
To be honest, most Christian institutions don't engage in serious research about sexual orientation, particularly not about their own efforts to change sexual orientation.

Sorry, I meant competent Christians. Not people like Ted Haggard.

I'll let you play around with Google and see if the various groups that pop up meet your standards of competency.

Touche. Or is it that I'd rather not waste my time reconciling reality with YOUR preferred view of reality.

I'm so tempted to make a rubber and glue joke...

[PsychGuy]

nor is it clear that in matters of psychology any study CAN be scientific.

I vehemently disagree. While it can be difficult, it is far from impossible. Have you ever taken a course in psychology?

[PsychGuy]

You're aware that the woman admitted that they could not speak at all to whether or not it was causation or correlation, right?

This is a classic problem with all scientific research that is far from confined to studies on homosexuality. This is why it was so hard for so many years for scientists to demonstrate a causal link between cigarettes and cancer, for example. They had all kinds of correlational research but nothing to show causation.

And there are certainly matters in science far more proven than "likely." Pick your battles.

This is a battle I'm very willing to pick, because it is absolutely key for you to understand this if our conversations on scientific topics are going to progress any further. Nothing in science is EVER proven. Ever. Gravity isn't proven. Now, it's been supported in studies over and over and over and over and over and over...so many times that we call it a law. But that's NOT proof. It takes only one study after a mountain of other studies to DISprove some theory. DISproof happens all the time in science. But nothing is proven. Make sense?

[PsychGuy]

[QUOTE]

Assuming there's only one kind of "homosexuality,"

Hi Hamster! Thanks for joining the party. Expand on what you mean here. Could there be more than one kind?

It's probably a combination of genes, hormones, and psychological imprinting at a very early age. I think there is compelling evidence that brain chemistry and hormone exposure during fetal development plays a major role. People who identify themselves as 'homosexual' might identify that way for a variety of reasons, though.

Some people report that they are able to modify their behavior enough that they maintain heterosexual relationships even if they still have homosexual feelings. Most seem to have no success in changing their actual orientation and report the change-therapies to be traumatic. However, some gay Christians have positive experiences with Christian ministries directed toward 'curing' homosexuals.

From what, I've read and in my very humble opinion, "gay 2 straight" "cures" seem to be a waste of time and probably needlessly emotionally taxing. However, those are usually different from programs that stress celibacy/chastity which acknowledge homosexuality to be part of a person's nature but teach them to express it in non-sexual ways.

Agreed.

[Abigail]

What choices, exactly? If a three year old boy is put in a room with barbie dolls and army figurines, and he goes for the barbie dolls, do you think he's intentionally trying to "become" gay? He's just picking the toy he'd rather play with.

No, however even young babies have expectations of how their needs will be met and if these have gotten addled right from birth then the transition from seeking physical satisfaction to seeking emotional satisfaction may well be affected too and so IMO it is quite conceivable that 'homosexuality' might have appeared early on in a child's life.

Abigail

[PsychGuy]

No, however even young babies have expectations of how their needs will be met and if these have gotten addled right from birth then the transition from seeking physical satisfaction to seeking emotional satisfaction may well be affected too and so IMO it is quite conceivable that 'homosexuality' might have appeared early on in a child's life.

Abigail

That is certainly conceivable, but again I'd think that has more to do with parenting and less to do with the child's personal choices, no?

[Abigail]

That is certainly conceivable, but again I'd think that has more to do with parenting and less to do with the child's personal choices, no?

We all make choices in order to satisfy our needs, so though initially it is about failed expectations, eventually you get a situation where the child makes choices which are satisfying to it but nevertheless reinforce the childs (unconscious) belief that its initial expectations were wrong (well not so much wrong as the road to unfulfillment).

[PsychGuy]

We all make choices in order to satisfy our needs, so though initially it is about failed expectations, eventually you get a situation where the child makes choices which are satisfying to it but nevertheless reinforce the childs (unconscious) belief that its initial expectations were wrong (well not so much wrong as the road to unfulfillment).

So applying what you're saying to the Barbie vs. GI Joe example, you're saying that the 3 year old boy chooses the Barbie doll because he has an unconscious belief that choosing the GI Joe is a road to unfulfillment?

[Chrs]

Had you read the articles, you'd realise that they both say this at the bottom:
The paper appears in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
PNAS. That one.

From the first link: "But our study can't answer questions of cause and effect," cautions lead researcher Ivanka Savic at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. "We can't say whether the differences are because of pre-existing differences in their brains, or if past sexual experiences have conditioned their brains to respond differently."

Firstly: You're cherry picking quotes. While not being particually strong, the first supports the second, and onto your objection:

From the second link: To get round this, Savic and her colleague, Per Lindström, chose to measure brain parameters likely to have been fixed at birth.

There have been studies into brain development and one can make a distinction between the two. To say "definitely have been" would be incorrect, in virtue of it being epistemologically impossible to prove that. Furthermore, they say brain parameters - meaning that the tests were performed in relation to many areas- meaning that if some parts were not, infact, fixed at birth then a result it still possible with the remaining data.

I also just noticed that the researcher is the same in both links, which suggests that it's the same study being referenced and that the objection for the first applies to the second.

There's two years between the PNAS articles, which tends to imply there has been more study done, in virtue of a different [more refined] conclusion being drawn.

[quoteYou're still not keeping up. I admitted that the homosexual male's admission of a woman's beauty was objective, but said that her personality was what dissuaded him, which is completely consistent with my argument.
[/quote]
You have admitted it is possible to evaluate objective beauty without a personal attraction: Why is it not possible for a homosexual to do the same thing for a woman? Is a homosexual man dissuaded by the personality of every single female he meets? That seems unreasonable, particually as we have established that males can have "feminine" traits and females "masculine" ones.

They can be held, but they represent abnormalities as opposed to normalcy for such a person's sex.

[Insert Argument Here]

Homosexual men tend to have female friends and lesbians tend to have male friends. So while they are still seeking similar personality traits in their friends, their abnormality causes them to cross gender barriers for their friends.

I, for example, have a large quantity of female friends, despite being heterosexual. Why is this a bad thing? What about the female friends they have? Are they all lesbian? I'd venture a guess at no.

God made men and women to be certain ways and men and women sometimes choose to be different ways, as the book of Romans fully carries out for any Christian in this discussion.

Good for them.

You think wrong.

No.
Assertion (Logic): a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)

While I have been using supporting evidence and premises, the point of which I called you out for it you did not.

So a man raised by wolves would still be attracted to human women? Or human men for that matter? Careful, because there have been people raised by wolves.

Well, having been raised by wolves they have no real reason to be attracted to humans, in virtue of never having met one before and, indeed, thinking that they're not one.

Nope. I can prove that people defending homosexuality, particularly so-called Christians, have a vested interest

Ooh, so-called christians! Again, with the loaded statements

Allow me to present a simple fact of life:
Everyone (Yes, Everyone) has a motivation for having, and defending, a point of view.

The defence "But... but... they have a vested interest, so they can't be right!" is a particular form of ad hominem.

Obviously I am of the opinion that bisexuals have a particular perversion that tends to make them more promiscuous.

Correlation =/= Causation. There are a number of different reasons as to why this may be the case. To propose just one:
A large amount of open, practising bisexuals and homosexuals are young.
There is more promiscuity in the young and in the old
Hence, bisexuals and homosexuals will have a higher population of promiscuous activity, and this is likely not due to the fact that they're bisexual and homosexual, but rather a third factor.

What does my theory have to do with whether or not homosexuality is wrong? It's interesting, though, that you connect the two. It appears you think that homosexuality being a choice has to do with whether or not it's wrong. And since you made the connection without my doing so, it appears you have a vested interest in claiming that homosexuality is not a choice.

You're comparing it to adultery, which is generally recognised as a bad thing. This is an obvious attempt to load the statement, otherwise you would've used another non-derogative example. Again, the reason you don't have to justify it is because you're not asked. If I asked you to justify it [even if it's "healthy and normal human behaviour"], and you were asked to justify it to the same extent that the homosexual community has had to over the years, you'd turn into someone who justifies your viewpoint, too. The simple answer is that you're not asked, and hence you don't need to justify.


And finally:

The lesbian woman's masculinity would prevent any normal (and therefore masculine) heterosexual male from finding her personally attractive.

...For a large amount of heterosexual men [Not me, I will qualify.] - scenes of which lesbians engage in sexual activity are a particular fantasy of them, and constitute a fair amount of pornography consumed [Which again, is something I disagree with. See, I can feel the pre-emptive strike ]

[Hamster]

Hi Hamster! Thanks for joining the party. Expand on what you mean here. Could there be more than one kind?

I've often thought that there could be different reasons that people are homosexual. Jack could be gay because of a hormonal cocktail he experienced in the womb. Larry could be gay because of an early childhood trauma. Charles could be gay because of how his mother's body reacted to having so many previous male children. Etc.

However, it seems (according to studies I've read about) that gay people in general have very similar brains, specifically parts of the brain that are determined at birth and don't change over time because of behavior.

Also, I have a habit of referring only to gay males when I say "gays" and "homosexuals" because that's what affects me the most, just putting that up front now

[YourMaster]

Two questions:
1) What is the cause of homosexuality? Is there more than one? Is it biological/innate or environmental/social? Or a little of both?

2) Can sexual orientation change? Does "gay-to-straight" therapy, for example, work?

No one is sure, the data is sketchy at this point. I guess the question is why should it matter?

[Hamster]

Hence, bisexuals and homosexuals will have a higher population of promiscuous activity, and this is likely not due to the fact that they're bisexual and homosexual, but rather a third factor.

I think there are a few factors

Gay men are promiscuous because they're men, first of all. I think men are naturally more sexually driven and less selective then women, and when you remove women from the picture it becomes a lot easier to find a casual sex partner among men.

There's also the fact that gays often have a 'hung for a sheep as a lamb' attitude. They're going to be viewed as perverts and condemned to hell even if they have a lasting committed relationship with the same person.

Gays have also, until recent years, had to find anonymous partners in dark alleys and smokey bars to keep their identity safe so they didn't face negative social consequences for their behavior - example, being fired from your job, ostracized, or, further back, castrated or thrown into a mental institution.

Many parts of the gay community also encourage and perpetuate this culture by associating promiscuous sex with "pride" and satisfaction with who they are, which leads to pretty awful displays if you've ever seen what goes down in San Francisco.

However, not all gays are sucked into this culture for long or at all, and it's no longer the only alternative. Almost every gay man I know is in a committed relationship (or marriage) that has lasted for ten years or longer. There are also communities of religious gay people who reject promiscuity and even take vows of celibacy.

[Chrs]

Gay men are promiscuous because they're men, first of all. I think men are naturally more sexually driven and less selective then women, and when you remove women from the picture it becomes a lot easier to find a casual sex partner among men.

I don't think that's necessarily true; I think it's more that males are more open about it, rather than actually being worse. It takes two to tango.

There's also the fact that gays often have a 'hung for a sheep as a lamb' attitude. They're going to be viewed as perverts and condemned to hell even if they have a lasting committed relationship with the same person.

Isn't that.. labelling theory? I forget, I'd have to ask 'Ren.

Gays have also, until recent years, had to find anonymous partners in dark alleys and smokey bars to keep their identity safe so they didn't face negative social consequences for their behavior - example, being fired from your job, ostracized, or, further back, castrated or thrown into a mental institution.

True.

Many parts of the gay community also encourage and perpetuate this culture by associating promiscuous sex with "pride" and satisfaction with who they are, which leads to pretty awful displays if you've ever seen what goes down in San Francisco.

I think this can be explained by the youth thing again. Perhaps not exclusively, but to some extent.

However, not all gays are sucked into this culture for long or at all, and it's no longer the only alternative. Almost every gay man I know is in a committed relationship (or marriage) that has lasted for ten years or longer. There are also communities of religious gay people who reject promiscuity and even take vows of celibacy.

As with heterosexuals: there are a large amount of promiscuous heterosexuals, and yet some people also don't. It's my personal opinion that a lot of it is down to demographics.

[YourMaster]

Under Freud's theory homosexuality was a fixated "immature" psychosexual state; but he also thought everyone was innately bisexual (notwithstanding its intuitive problems, there is some degree of residual merit in Freud's theory). Obviously the idea of exclusive homosexual orientation is an oddity in evolutionary biology. However, to say our genes predispose us toward a certain sexual orientation is simplistic (at best); and statements like that have little real scientific value. That being said – our genes do want to reproduce (in fact that's essentially the only thing they're geared to do). Strangely enough genes will even compel its organism to reproduce at the expense of the organism (study the mating habits of spiders ... you'll see what I mean). This would seem to indicate that if a genetic predisposition toward exclusive homosexual orientation ever did exist – it would have been eliminated by natural selection long ago. Traits evolve as a result of reproductive success (pure and simple). This is an empirical law of biology. However, even this analysis is overly simplistic.

It's possible that there is (for lack of a better term) a certain acceptable range of error in nature. In other words if a minor deviation in, say, the X chromosome only presents itself in 1 or 2% of the male population within our species, it could have easily survived evolution (and there seems to be a clear X chromosome connection in male homosexuality). In fact exclusive homosexual orientation among females would actually present a much bigger evolutionary problem. However, all of this is still overly simplistic, because it's pretty clear not all homosexuals share this deviant gene (or chromosome). In other words homosexuality probably can be caused purely by psychological factors (even though in a small percentage of at least the male population there probably is a biological predisposition toward same sex orientation).

Right now we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that homosexuality (at least among males) has a genetic element in some cases; but psychology also plays an important role (and indeed psychology is probably the predominant factor in the overwhelming majority of cases). People unfortunately have a habit of overestimating how much genetics can influence behavior (in the majority of cases; although genetics can and does exert a profound influence on behavior in a very small percentage of the population). Unfortunately this issue has become political; and too many people who didn't even take biology in high school suddenly think they're experts in neuropsychology, sociobiology, and so on.