Children Raised by Homosexuals are 7 times more likely to be Gays or Bisexuals

[DelicateMelody]

Thank you Abbadon… I was trying to google search for some of those studies. Now I can go to bed.

Whew!

 

[syromalabarcath]

Yes. Turns out it the same one that causes rudeness.

The truth is sometimes disguised as “rudeness.”

 

[mystagogia]

What continually saddens and frustrates me in these debates over homosexuality is this tendency to reduce that matter to what can be asserted with certainity scientifically about the origin of homosexuality. Always we are reduced to whose got the biggest bibliography and who can reel off a position cloaked most closely to the imagined verbal style of learned doctor on the matter.

But for staters, no complete origin of homosexuality can be asserted due to material causation. For instance, there is the matter of people choosing to live as homosexuals due to political reasons entirely, and those who are lonely souls seeking companionship and wind up in homosexual communities. Science may find correlations among several biological factors which suggest different things in constrained ways, none of which present a conclusive understanding of how every homosexual developed his or her sexuality.

But let’s say science could explain such things conclusively. Let’s say the origin of homosexuality was as well understood as the origin of, say, Down’s Syndrome. At once the galleries howl with such a suggestion! To compare homosexuality with any kind of materially known birth condition is the soul of recklessness, we are told. But isn’t this search for the material causation of the one condition exactly like the search for the same thing in the other? If not, why? If homosexuality is a genetic condition what sets it apart from others such as Down’s Syndrome? Studies have linked genetics to criminal behavior, what to make of that? What makes homosexuality so special, what makes it a net good?

Furthermore, if science could say everything about the origin of homosexuality, what does science have to say about the morality of homosexual behavior? Nothing, because science is not in the business of morality. Science is the realm of material causation. To the question of whether biological or genetic outcomes are good or not science really has nothing to say. That’s a matter for philosophy or religion.

When arguing for or against moral issues surrounding homosexuality, and when contemplating these issues, beware the reliance upon science studies like we’ve seen here. They will lead you astray. They are not the right tool for these purposes.

 

[Abbadon]

What continually saddens and frustrates me in these debates over homosexuality is this tendency to reduce that matter to what can be asserted with certainity scientifically about the origin of homosexuality. Always we are reduced to whose got the biggest bibliography and who can reel off a position cloaked most closely to the imagined verbal style of learned doctor on the matter.

Sorry all i was doing was merely rebutting the claims that there is no evidence to indicate a genetic link for homosexuality. I just stated a list of studies and a summary of one which had reached such ocnclusions

But for staters, no complete origin of homosexuality can be asserted due to material causation. For instance, there is the matter of people choosing to live as homosexuals due to political reasons entirely, and those who are lonely souls seeking companionship and wind up in homosexual communities. Science may find correlations among several biological factors which suggest different things in constrained ways, none of which present a conclusive understanding of how every homosexual developed his or her sexuality.

Not yet anyway, but in the future I’m sure we will understand biological systems to their limits.

But let’s say science could explain such things conclusively. Let’s say the origin of homosexuality was as well understood as the origin of, say, Down’s Syndrome. At once the galleries howl with such a suggestion! To compare homosexuality with any kind of materially known birth condition is the soul of recklessness, we are told. But isn’t this search for the material causation of the one condition exactly like the search for the same thing in the other? If not, why? If homosexuality is a genetic condition what sets it apart from others such as Down’s Syndrome? Studies have linked genetics to criminal behavior, what to make of that? What makes homosexuality so special, what makes it a net good?

Well understanding sexuality and other biological factors are both interesting and help the advancement of humanity. Eliminating genetic code that is to do with human sexuality will help us in understanding the entire human genome, which will help us do amazing things. From living near forever to recovering from every disease through to ending cancer.

Furthermore, if science could say everything about the origin of homosexuality, what does science have to say about the morality of homosexual behavior? Nothing, because science is not in the business of morality. Science is the realm of material causation. To the question of whether biological or genetic outcomes are good or not science really has nothing to say. That’s a matter for philosophy or religion.

When arguing for or against moral issues surrounding homosexuality, and when contemplating these issues, beware the reliance upon science studies like we’ve seen here. They will lead you astray. They are not the right tool for these purposes.

Yes but now we can rule out the argument that homosexuality is not natural and is in opposition against nature, because we now understand how misguided our previous belief was.

And we can move on to I guess what harm does it cause? How should we treat those that are homosexuals?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes but now we can rule out the argument that homosexuality is not natural and is in opposition against nature, because we now understand how misguided our previous belief was.

No! Once again, we are talking inclinations and tendencies, NOT behavior. There has also been a recent scientific discovery of a genetic link to alcoholism; the tendency can supposedly be inherited. But no one makes anyone take that additional, intoxicating drink. That gene is no more deterministic than homosexuality: or, rather, such a deterministic link to behavior has not been established.

SSA does not equal homosexual behavior.

I have inherited a number of traits from my relatives: some are, no doubt, wonderful. Others I know for a fact, if I acted upon them (and when I do) are dangerous to my soul and unhealthy for my psyche, not to mention emotionally injurious to others. Inheriting something does not give you a pass on responsibility for your actions.

There are modern men (and occasionally women) who engage in homosexual behavior for a short time period – such as experimentally, in adolescence, such as when confined in the prison or in the military – yet both before and after those experiences they had zero observable attraction to the same sex, and were never bisexuals in desire or actuality. Rather, they returned to their inborn (apparently) exclusively heterosexual tendencies which they practiced previously.

 

[Abbadon]

No! Once again, we are talking inclinations and tendencies, NOT behavior. There has also been a recent scientific discovery of a genetic link to alcoholism; the tendency can supposedly be inherited. But no one makes anyone take that additional, intoxicating drink. That gene is no more deterministic than homosexuality: or, rather, such a deterministic link to behavior has not been established.

SSA does not equal homosexual behavior.

I have inherited a number of traits from my relatives: some are, no doubt, wonderful. Others I know for a fact, if I acted upon them (and when I do) are dangerous to my soul and unhealthy for my psyche, not to mention emotionally injurious to others. Inheriting something does not give you a pass on responsibility for your actions.

There are modern men (and occasionally women) who engage in homosexual behavior for a short time period – such as experimentally, in adolescence, such as when confined in the prison or in the military – yet both before and after those experiences they had zero observable attraction to the same sex, and were never bisexuals in desire or actuality. Rather, they returned to their inborn (apparently) exclusively heterosexual tendencies which they practiced previously.

So what does that tell us about sexuality? What is the population quotient of these individuals? Do they feel neutral about sexuality?

And YES it is natural, but so is rape. And YES there is a genetic component to it (as well as biochemical and others). But there is also a genetic component to psychopathy. psychopathy is also natural.

But we should now move onto questions about sexuality. Who does it hurt? Why is it wrong? And stop with all this homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex. No one chooses who they are attracted to.

 

[pnewton]

I think maybe knowing this is why it is important to stand up for morality.

Of course this is too logical to consider, easy to ignore, notice how many have not even made a comment concerning my post before you.

I noticed. Like I said in the abortion thread, many people have the psycholigical need to justify the actions they do not want to give up, or as in the case of some politicians, justify supporting their power base.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And stop with all this homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex. No one chooses who they are attracted to.

And you can stop with all this evasion when people acknowledge that the attraction – whether momentary or lifelong – may or may not be chosen, but the behavior is.

(I normally don’t dramatize my words with font sizes, but apparently I need to get your attention.)

Human sexuality is in flux and not fixed in the early years of childhood. You are not conscious of “a sexuality.” You are conscious of your body and inquisitive about it, and often experiment in a quasi-sexual or latent sexual way (games, questions, role-playing) with both the same sex and the opposite sex. These stages are universal with both genders and have been documented by researchers for many decades. For various reasons, still not yet entirely known, and not necessarily excluding environment, you will end up on one side of the spectrum or the other, in terms of attraction, identification, and ultimately, preference.

I will just note the large quantity of male homosexuals who have come forward to admit that it was the deficit in an accepting male role model (i.e., father) that ultimately drove them to the arms of an accepting male. The male human species being wired as it is, that psychological intimacy and psychological attraction was one that then led them logically to act on it physically.

 

[KathleenElsie]

You can go into the “scientific” research and prove almost anything. From the old ditty of blacks are inferior to women are not as intelligent as men. What is your point?

Go back far enough and you might even get the “fact” that the earth is flat.

 

[yngve]

You can go into the “scientific” research and prove almost anything. From the old ditty of blacks are inferior to women are not as intelligent as men. What is your point?

Go back far enough and you might even get the “fact” that the earth is flat.

That’s rudeness. You don’t realize that some people have dedicated their life to study so you ca go to the pharmacy and buy an aspirin.

 

[Arandur]

What continually saddens and frustrates me in these debates over homosexuality is this tendency to reduce that matter to what can be asserted with certainity scientifically about the origin of homosexuality. Always we are reduced to whose got the biggest bibliography and who can reel off a position cloaked most closely to the imagined verbal style of learned doctor on the matter.
…
Furthermore, if science could say everything about the origin of homosexuality, what does science have to say about the morality of homosexual behavior? Nothing, because science is not in the business of morality. Science is the realm of material causation. To the question of whether biological or genetic outcomes are good or not science really has nothing to say. That’s a matter for philosophy or religion.

Thank you for this. If I may rephrase part of your point: people seem to be trying to use scientific evidence about something, about it’s causation, to determine its moral standing. There is a leap in logic there that I have never seen illustrated save in entirely humanistic philosophies that must essentially devolve to: whatever science says can happen is morally acceptable.

If we are concerned with the morality of homosexual behavior, we must consider things other than the origin of same sex attraction. What your body is predisposed to is not a choice, but how you act is a choice, even if it is more difficult to choose one thing over another because of predispositions. I speak generally because there are many physical predispositions that we can’t help (some might call habit or lack of self-control or discipline a predisposition, however), but that does not absolve us from committing a morally wrong act.

It also seems odd to me that people would try to use science to prove that homosexual attraction is just as normal as heterosexual attraction, and then make another leap over logic and say that therefore homosexual behavior is perfectly acceptable. We, after all, recognize that there is a whole lot of heterosexual behavior that is morally wrong. What suddenly makes homosexual behavior free from similar examination?

 

[Semajleahcim]

If we are concerned with the morality of homosexual behavior, we must consider things other than the origin of same sex attraction. What your body is predisposed to is not a choice, but how you act is a choice, even if it is more difficult to choose one thing over another because of predispositions. I speak generally because there are many physical predispositions that we can’t help (some might call habit or lack of self-control or discipline a predisposition, however), but that does not absolve us from committing a morally wrong act.

I agree with this.
I disagree with an organization that, while having changed its stance very, very slowly over time, is restricting the lives of one set of people because of one small difference, a difference that harms no one and no thing, under the heading of “morality”. the church HAS said that homosexuality was evil, and abomination and has burned alive and shunned homosexuals throughout the centuries, but has now said “well, we weren’t ‘wrong’ but now we accept that ssa is a natural inclination for those who have it, but you still can’t act on it, because just like heterosexuals, sex outside of marriage is a sin.” But wait, heterosexuals CAN get married, so that means they can express their love however they want, with no restrictions at all. It is discrimination, no matter how you try to word it, because its simply keeping one set of people beneath another set of people. It doesnt really bother me too much, because fortunately, the church doesnt have the power it once held, but it does bother me, because it causes a lot of unnecessary pain and self-loathing to people trying to reconcile what they are with what the church tells them they should be. I dunno, i just find it kind of messed up that an organization lauding that “all love comes from God” is telling people “you’re not allowed to love each other”, because let’s face it, sex is the ultimate expression of love.

 

[fix]

I agree with this.
I disagree with an organization that, while having changed its stance very, very slowly over time, is restricting the lives of one set of people because of one small difference, a difference that harms no one and no thing, under the heading of “morality”. the church HAS said that homosexuality was evil, and abomination and has burned alive and shunned homosexuals throughout the centuries, but has now said “well, we weren’t ‘wrong’ but now we accept that ssa is a natural inclination for those who have it, but you still can’t act on it, because just like heterosexuals, sex outside of marriage is a sin.” But wait, heterosexuals CAN get married, so that means they can express their love however they want, with no restrictions at all. It is discrimination, no matter how you try to word it, because its simply keeping one set of people beneath another set of people. It doesnt really bother me too much, because fortunately, the church doesnt have the power it once held, but it does bother me, because it causes a lot of unnecessary pain and self-loathing to people trying to reconcile what they are with what the church tells them they should be. I dunno, i just find it kind of messed up that an organization lauding that “all love comes from God” is telling people “you’re not allowed to love each other”, because let’s face it, sex is the ultimate expression of love.

When did the Church burn anyone?

When did any type of sexual expression suddenly become love?

 

[Semajleahcim]

When did the Church burn anyone?

When did any type of sexual expression suddenly become love?

um the church has killed a lot of people. there was a thing called the crusades, the inquisition, ww2 (i know they weren’t active, but i suppose non-violent non-resistance did a lot for the jews and homosexuals killed in the holocaust). and since when wasnt sex an of any kind an expression of love? Or did they just start calling it love making for laughs and im not in on the joke?

Listen, I realize that to hardcore catholics that the church is infallible, but the church is and always has been run by man, and has been a political machine these last two thousand years, but since there’s not a catholic political party, i will accept your denial.

 

[buffalo]

Thank you for this. If I may rephrase part of your point: people seem to be trying to use scientific evidence about something, about it’s causation, to determine its moral standing. There is a leap in logic there that I have never seen illustrated save in entirely humanistic philosophies that must essentially devolve to: whatever science says can happen is morally acceptable.

If we are concerned with the morality of homosexual behavior, we must consider things other than the origin of same sex attraction. What your body is predisposed to is not a choice, but how you act is a choice, even if it is more difficult to choose one thing over another because of predispositions. I speak generally because there are many physical predispositions that we can’t help (some might call habit or lack of self-control or discipline a predisposition, however), but that does not absolve us from committing a morally wrong act.

It also seems odd to me that people would try to use science to prove that homosexual attraction is just as normal as heterosexual attraction, and then make another leap over logic and say that therefore homosexual behavior is perfectly acceptable. We, after all, recognize that there is a whole lot of heterosexual behavior that is morally wrong. What suddenly makes homosexual behavior free from similar examination?

The propaganda has to be about orientation. Advocates have been very successful at this. The choice to act is the issue.

 

[buffalo]

Listen, I realize that to hardcore catholics that the church is infallible, but the church is and always has been run by man, and has been a political machine these last two thousand years, but since there’s not a catholic political party, i will accept your denial.

Sources?

 

[fix]

um the church has killed a lot of people.

Sources?

there was a thing called the crusades, the inquisition,

Yes, why were those wrong? And which ones are you referring to?

ww2 (i know they weren’t active, but i suppose non-violent non-resistance did a lot for the jews and homosexuals killed in the holocaust). and since when wasnt sex an of any kind an expression of love? Or did they just start calling it love making for laughs and im not in on the joke?

People call all kinds of things love that are not love at all.

Listen, I realize that to hardcore catholics that the church is infallible, but the church is and always has been run by man, and has been a political machine these last two thousand years, but since there’s not a catholic political party, i will accept your denial.

Are you the authority?

 

[m_sr_a]

Any comment saying “science has proven” or so is unscientific. Science cannot “prove” a theory. That because a theory is independent of occurrence in time but we cannot foresee the future. The best we can say is that evidence has not contradicted the theory. See Karl Popper, the father of contemporary theory of science, for this.

One thing I note throughout the discussion is the verbal centering around sex instead of love.

 

[Semajleahcim]

Sources?

i went to school, they teach these things.

Yes, why were those wrong? And which ones are you referring to?

let’s see, the crusades was a delayed response to the taking of land by islam, by many years, and the catholics decide to go in scimitars a blazing and kill everyone they could in the name of god. in a loving way, of course. The inquisition, instituted by spain and carried out by the superiors of the catholic church tortured and kill many cathars and jews in order to force them to convert to christianity, and if it was found there “converts” secretly practiced their religion, they had them killed. they also kill practicing homosexuals and witches, tho that was mostly incidental. I don’t know about you, but killing someone for their beliefs is wrong, unless you’re a nazi. are you a nazi?

People call all kinds of things love that are not love at all.

they also call all sorts of things love that IS love!

Are you the authority?

i think we all are, tho some are better than others.

 

[thewalrus]

Yes, why were those wrong? And which ones are you referring to?

You can’t be serious in asking why the Crusades were wrong.

People call all kinds of things love that are not love at all.

I’ve noticed this around here a lot actually. People say that they’re showing “love” to homosexuals when they deny them equal rights.

Are you the authority?

No, I imagine he/she is simply thinking for his/herself. Not all religious expression/experience hinges on hierarchical notions of authority.