Article on biological influences for homosexuality

[ega]

Riley259:

The argument that homosexuality is disordered and sinful

This is a non-sequiter. People with downs syndrome are ‘/disordered’, but are they sinful?

can be made much easier when you go after a person’s religious sensibilities.

Is this because the religiously indoctrinated have had their critical faculties damaged? Or is it because damaged logic is a prerequisite to relifious belief? I

I’m sorry, but I dont follow your logic, unless you are claiming one of these.

However, it’s a little more difficult when that person you’re trying to persuade is an atheist.

Because the evidence must pass rational analysis? Because critical faculties are present?

No, I still dont get it. I refuse to believe being religioud is indicative of such attributes.

Each gender is biologically made to compliment the other and reproduction (which obviously is an evolutionary mandate) can occur naturally only when a male and female have sexual intercourse

How odd, I know of many species cpable of asexual reproduction, and some that survive purely with females. I am also aware of genital misatch in many species. That is the male is ‘good enough’ to fertilise the female, but not an ideal match.

Sexual reproduction is not an evolutionary mandate,and even if it were that does not imply that all members of a population should engage in reproductive sex. Afterall celibates in our society are not treated in the same way as gay people, but thier reproductive success is somewhat lesser.

At the risk of being pedantic, this is basic biology and is what happens naturally.

Homosexuality occurs naturally, that is basic biology, sorry. The rate appears to be about 5% across societies at the present time (specifics apply), and has always been present. It strikes me that arguing against homosexuality is like arguing against the tides coming in and out.

Gravirty is natural, so is flight. Heterosecuality is natural, so is homosexuality.

By definition, any other deviation from that process is unnatural and thus is disordered.

What makes you think gay people do not reproduce? I have to ask as I know several lesbians who are parents, and not quite as many gay men.

It seems to me you are mixing up sexual preference with the urge to reproduce.

It seems, also, that you are unable to answer my previous question. If homosexuality is a choice, when did you last want to fondle a member of your own gender?

If the answer is never, then you have no concept of what what being gay means.

You prove my point.

Homosexuality is not supposed to happen and just because it exists doesn’t mean it is not disordered.

If life were just about breeding, you might have a point. But gay people breed…so…

Are people with same-sex attractions making a free choice to be that way? In most cases the answer is a resounding “no” but that doesn’t mean that the origin of the attraction is strictly biological.

But that is not my point is it? My point is the assumption of free will is built upon the idea that we all face the same choices, and have the same resources to resist temptation. I contend this is not the case.

I do not steal, I am not tempted to steal, so what virtue can be found in this? NONE!

If the majority of poster here do not have even a jot of same-sex attraction going on then they have no conceptual framework.

The evidence points to environmental factors being the biggest contributors to a child’s initial same-sex attraction but some biological factors may predispose that child and make him vunerable to developing same-sex attractions under specific environmental conditions.

This is comforting nonsense. Regardless of how dangerous, violent, opressive, deforming and vindictive an environment about 2% of the male population remain steadfastly homosexual.

Those conditions are outlined very well by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi… When you introduce the consequences of homosexuality (disease, depression, emotional dysfunction, addiction)

These consequences correlete to homophobia, not homosexuality. Sorry.

Anti-gay people make the lives of gay people a misery. That effort of theirs leads to alienation, anomie, isolation, low self-esteem, and so on.

Blaming the victim…I though that had stopped.

vand the religious implications (violation of the natural law, closed to life, extreme sexual promiscuity, etc.)

Back to front,

the case against homosexual behavior then the arguments against it are a slam dunk.

A mish mash of self justification and avoidence I am afraid. Bad science, bad psychology, assumption ridden and rather poor.

I sincerely will pray for your conversion my friend.

Thank you, I am sure they are needed.

 

[ega]

I look forward to posters presentinng evidence of free will.

Really, because I was once of opnion but my experience has shown me that we do not face the same choices.

Examples:

I hate custard tarts, I love pears, I love pears more than Bob, but Bob loves apples, to which I am indifferent.

More scientifically, we know that the basis of behaviour is hormonal, we know that variations in genes along with environment effect behaviour and outcomes.

We do not have any evidence of free will.

Could someone please come up with a theory as to why I ont care for apples? Maybe one dropped on my head when I was a child and not being Newton, got the wrong message.

 

[Riley259]

It’s sad when people pull the “homophobia” card out of frustration. What does disease and addiction have to do with homophobia - what’s the link? A person gets HIV because someone opposed to homosexual behavior is homophobic? A homsexual person’s sexual promiscuity far exceeds the average heterosexual’s because someone who opposes the behavior is homophobic? Tell me where the logic is in that. Talk about bad assumptions.

 

[ega]

Oh, by the way.

Gay men have been poisoned, electrocuted, imprisoned, beaten, beheaded and much much more to stop them. None of it works.

Theories about manipulating the minds of children are bourne out by one study. This study showed that homosexuality can be changed only if (1) the person trying to change is deeply unhappy about being gay and (20 if that person is religious.

Causality isnt clear, they may want to change because religionists have inculcated a deep sense of self hatred. That is, theists attack their natural god given nature until they need change to feel good about themselves.

 

[Riley259]

ega:

We do not have any evidence of free will.

This statement is self-refuting. If what you are saying is true, then you didn’t choose to ponder whether there was any evidence of free will or not. Think about it for awhile.

 

[ega]

Riley259:

It’s sad when people pull the “homophobia” card out of frustration.

Please! We are adults. We know this is a straw argument. My previous post was very long. How often was ‘homophobia’ mentioned?

What does disease and addiction have to do with homophobia -

I think I made it clear that socially excluding people has powerful effects. You evade this point, though I do know that it gives comfort to people to cry name-calling, it is a useful distraction.

what’s the link? A person gets HIV because someone opposed to homosexual behavior is homophobic?

As far as I am aware HIV is an overwhelmingly heterosexual disease once you take into account the whole world. Further Europeans are less vunerable than other groups due to a common genetic ‘flaw’ in their DNA. Some Black people demonstrate almost 100% resistance despite being prostitues.

Homophobia in the form of social exclusion destabalises relationships. This leads to a more active sex life while people search for fulfillment and happiness, and many mistake a good shag for these things.

But, if parents and friends accept these relationships, support them, listen and provide the support framework that straight couples get, those relationships have a btter chance of lastig, and a better chance of stability.

A homsexual person’s sexual promiscuity far exceeds the average heterosexual’s because someone who opposes the behavior is homophobic? Tell me where the logic is in that. Talk about bad assumptions.

Firstly, I think you will find that lesbians have the very lowest levels of infection, bar none. Lesbians are more faithful and have longer lasting relationships than any other group.

Sorry.

Secondly the group with the largest rises in HIV for the last 5 years in the UK have been straight people.

Sorry.

Thirdly, you havent seen the behaviour in such places as ‘Tiger Tiger’ or the massive levels of prmiscuity. Your response is a bit out of date.

Sorry.

 

[ega]

Riley259:

This statement is self-refuting. If what you are saying is true, then you didn’t choose to ponder whether there was any evidence of free will or not. Think about it for awhile.

But I never claimed free will, and I never claimed I had any way to respond except in the way I responded.

Free will is only a problem for those who insist it exists.

ponder that.

 

[Riley259]

Firstly, I think you will find that lesbians have the very lowest levels of infection, bar none. Lesbians are more faithful and have longer lasting relationships than any other group.

Not longer lasting in general than heterosexuals. However, I was originally referring to male homosexuals and the facts about their promiscuity are alarming. By the way, you might want to check out the book, Scaling the Secular City by J.P. Moreland for an excellent discussion of whether free will exists. Some day you may freely choose to believe in God. I hope you’re enjoying the forum.

 

[ega]

Obviously you were thinking of men.

That was my point.

 

[gilliam]

ega:

Secondly the group with the largest rises in HIV for the last 5 years in the UK have been straight people…

When the tests for HIV antibodies became widely available in the mid 1980s, three main risk groups of HIV were identified. These were men who have sex with men, injecting drug users and people who have received treatment with blood products. Many of these people came forward for testing in the mid 1980s, after which there was a decline in the annual number of HIV diagnoses. This trend was reversed towards the end of the decade and there were between 2,500 and 2,800 diagnoses each year from 1990 to 1997

Since 1999 there has been a steep increase in the number of HIV diagnoses. During 2004, reports show that 6,403 people had been diagnosed with HIV in the UK. This number is expected to rise as further data are received (there were 7,136 reports in 2003). The major component of the rapid increase in recent years has been in heterosexually acquired infections. Although around 80% of these are contracted in countries with high HIV prevalence, infections acquired within the UK have also risen. It should be noted that an important factor in recent increases has been the introduction of clinician reporting, which was only introduced for HIV diagnoses made after the beginning of 2000.

Men who have sex with men remain the group at greatest risk of getting infected with HIV in the UK. Throughout the 1990s, there were modest falls in the number of new HIV diagnoses among this group, except in 1996 when highly active antiretroviral therapy first became widely available and the advantages of early diagnosis became clearer. Since 1999, the figures have steadily risen again to more than 1,800 per year.** The primary cause of transmission is high risk sexual behaviour**, and there are indications of rises in such behaviour in recent years. However, the introduction of clinician reporting is also likely to have contributed to recent trends

As the end of March 2005, 33,669 men who have sex with men have been diagnosed with HIV. It has been estimated that, at the end of 2003, just under half of all people living with HIV in the UK were men who had sex with men.

The number of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK has risen hugely over the last 15 years. In 1999, for the first time, the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses overtook the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men. During 2004, there were 3,627 reports of heterosexually acquired HIV, and a total of 26,653 had been reported by the end of March 2005.

avert.org/uksummary.htm

What is the population of homosexual men in the UK? 2%?
And they account for overy 1/2 of the HIV infections in the country? And that is attributable to rampent sexual behavior?

And the increase in heterosexual HIV is because people are brining it in from countries that have AIDs epidemics?

Not sure what your point was?

 

[Lizzie]

ega:

Riley259:

As far as I am aware HIV is an overwhelmingly heterosexual disease once you take into account the whole world.

You are dead wrong on this.

And your opinions further plight of women whose MSM behavior have infected them. Witness South Africa where homosexual behavior among boys is acceptable and females worry about how deadly their mate selections will be.

Allso witness that the gay lobby twists the wording and the stats to claim that both gays and bisexuals top the disease spreading. The CDC classification of MSM means men having sex with males. Gays claim these are two separarate catagories but MSM means MSM. This promiscuity by MSM types is inexcusable and threatens the health of women, too.

The Catholic Church preaches chastity and fidelity in marriage. Those who excuse sinful actions that violate these premises do great harm.

 

[ega]

My calculations present that 2% of men are both gay and out at any one time.

But on the basis of HIV infections it should be noted I know many people who have been gay for all their adult lives and remain infection free.

They use condoms, an activity noted for its Catholic condemnation.

Thus the idea that homosexual = disease is false. It is a false argument based on fear. Behaviour affects infection rates, not sexuality.

Anal sex is dangerous, as is all sex, getting out of bed and walking down the street. These are not arguments for anything except CAUTION.

Might i just compliment the previous poster for their sourcing of data, if not their analysis

 

[gilliam]

ega:

My calculations present that 2% of men are both gay and out at any one time.

But on the basis of HIV infections it should be noted I know many people who have been gay for all their adult lives and remain infection free.

They use condoms, an activity noted for its Catholic condemnation.

Thus the idea that homosexual = disease is false. It is a false argument based on fear. Behaviour affects infection rates, not sexuality.

Anal sex is dangerous, as is all sex, getting out of bed and walking down the street. These are not arguments for anything except CAUTION.

Might i just compliment the previous poster for their sourcing of data, if not their analysis

Thank you for your compliment.

The Catholic position is we are all humans. It doesn’t matter how you identify yourself. It doesn’t matter if you belong to a church or not. We all have free will and we can all behave in a good way. Or we can sin. It is our choice. Each of us are tempted in our own ways to sin. However, none of us are tempted beyond our ability to reisist sinful behavior. What is sinful is certain types of behavior, not the fact we are tempted (if that were the case, we would all only be living in sin all the time )

Remember: it is the behavior that is the sin.

 

[ega]

Lizzie:

ega:

You are dead wrong on this.

And your opinions further plight of women whose MSM behavior have infected them. Witness South Africa where homosexual behavior among boys is acceptable and females worry about how deadly their mate selections will be.

Homosexual behaviour in africa is deeply frowned upon, Africa is a deeply religionist and superstitionist continent. The spread of HIV is put down to the incedibly high levels of prostitution, and AIDS is considered to be nothing more than an American conspiracy.

The suggestion that homosexuality is deeply implicated in Adrica ( you forgot india and China BTW) is fitting facts to prejudice.

Allso witness that the gay lobby twists the wording and the stats to claim that both gays and bisexuals top the disease spreading. The CDC classification of MSM means men having sex with males. Gays claim these are two separarate catagories but MSM means MSM. This promiscuity by MSM types is inexcusable and threatens the health of women, too.

GM says these are two different categories, and you say they are…NOT.

Let me think about the vested interests and religious beliefs here for a while

 

[Lizzie]

How heterosexual is the spread of AIDs when black women is this country have been infected by their ‘down low’ MSM sex partners?

All should consider what the Catholic Church teaches: chastity and fidelity in marriage.

 

[ega]

gilliam:

Thank you for your compliment.

The Catholic position is we are all humans. It doesn’t matter how you identify yourself. It doesn’t matter if you belong to a church or not. We all have free will and we can all behave in a good way. Or we can sin. It is our choice. Each of us are tempted in our own ways to sin. However, none of us are tempted beyond our ability to reisist sinful behavior. What is sinful is certain types of behavior, not the fact we are tempted (if that were the case, we would all only be living in sin all the time )

Well, you are very welcome.

I do know the catholic position on sin, and it is a source of constant pain that many of your faith forget we are all sinners. And I agree that it is not being tempted that is the sin, but giving in.

But how fair is it for a God to say ‘this is a sin’ and then build people who cannot fulfiill their emotional and physical needs because of that rule?

You might as well make 2% of the populuation radion breathers and blame them for not being able to breathe.

I am much for the covenant view. That it is the emotion that counts, the pure love.

 

[gilliam]

ega:

Lizzie:

Homosexual behaviour in africa is deeply frowned upon, Africa is a deeply religionist and superstitionist continent. The spread of HIV is put down to the incedibly high levels of prostitution, and AIDS is considered to be nothing more than an American conspiracy.

The suggestion that homosexuality is deeply implicated in Adrica ( you forgot india and China BTW) is fitting facts to prejudice.

GM says these are two different categories, and you say they are…NOT.

Let me think about the vested interests and religious beliefs here for a while

Looks like the major cause of AIDs if Africa is, ready? Dirty needles:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2995779.stm

 

[gilliam]

ega:

But how fair is it for a God to say ‘this is a sin’ and then build people who cannot fulfiill their emotional and physical needs because of that rule?

Again, temptation is not the sin, behavior is. Or to say it another way, perceved emotional and physical needs are not the sin, behavior is.

Your arguement can be used, and is, by adulterers, thieves, philanderers, and many other sinners.

Everyone is called to chastity. Many millions over the years have lived very fulfilled chaste lives.

You may want to continue this dialog on the Apologetics forum where there are more experts there to really answer your questions better than I can.

 

[ega]

Lizzie:

How heterosexual is the spread of AIDs when black women is this country have been infected by their ‘down low’ MSM sex partners?

All should consider what the Catholic Church teaches: chastity and fidelity in marriage.

Pleaase…

The epidemology of HIV in Africa follows the innoculation efforts of the west. It was thought it followed the dstribution of batches of innoculations, and it does. But in the 50s, and 60s and early 70s the innoculation equipment was not sterilised. Thus the drug users were merely repeating errors.

In many countries with a strong immigrant population there is a strong same-race/same-culture preference for the first couple of generations.

You can keep saying it all the fault of gay people, but it is a way out of date analysis.

 

[ega]

I suspect you ae not considering how arbitary the rules of sin are…but no matter. You have no proof of two things. You have no proof that your temptation is as great as mine, whatsoever. Nor do you have proof that my tools for resistance match yours.

The reason so many bad people use these arguments is because some are true. uhh. (checks references)…

newscientist.com/article/mg17523554.000;jsessionid=HMAIDIGLLOBN

Further, I know 4 people who are ‘called’ to chasitiy. I alsoc know about 1200 others.