Homosexuality: A Mental Disorder?

[pprimeau1976]

I cant beleive how many times this question is asked and answered then asked again, it is completely possible for the gene to be passed on becvause there are positive and recesive genes, omb, it makes me laugh when people ask this, it is as simple to explain as why black rabbits can have other colored one. That is if it is genetic.

Wikipedia has a good article about evolution. I didn’t know until recently that it was Gregor’s Mendel’s work in genetics that provided the missing link in Darwin’s evolutionary theory. An atheist and a Catholic monk turned the world upside down!

It’s not that simple to explain the inheritence of a supposed gay gene simply because it may be recessive. The gene for hair color does not affect the process by which hair color is passed down.

If I have a brown hair recessive gene and my wife has a blonde hair dominant gene. I can still pass down by brown hair recessive gene. How can a two men with a “gay gene” pass down their genes? They would have to violate what appears natural to them, wouldn’t they?

One can claim that the social taboos against homosexual relations caused the genes to be passed down. Even if that’s true, why encourage people to come out of the closet? If homosexuality is genetic, rejecting the traditional heterosexual husband and wife relationship will only lead to fewer homosexuals.

 

[PauloFreire2]

I say leave gays alone, as long as they stay quiet. Sounds horrible, I know, but sexual orientation is really nobody’s business except the individual’s. Gays should go about their business, quietly, and non-gays should do the same.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I have heard about the hormone too. I don’t know if I am comfortable with that process. What if those extra hormones serve another purpose and produce a positive characteristic? People with homosexual attraction have many positive qualities, what if those qualities are caused by this extra hormone? To me, it’s genetically or biologically removing a temptation. Is that what we should be doing?

And the social structure theory does not hold with me, since social structures are a relatively new thing compared to how long homo sapiens have been on this Earth. (When I use the term homo sapiens, I think there is a distinction between homo sapiens and human beings. I talked about that on another thread.)

Well, I think up until the late 20th century and this century, many homosexuals would marry and procreate, since for centuries it was looked down upon by society, which might explain how it would be genetic, if that is true.

But in Greek and Roman times, I have read that it was a common practice for men and women to have homosexual relations usually with people beneath their stations like slaves or with children, both of whom were considered weak and submissive. Although in some of those societies, it was frowned upon to have sexual relations with a person of the same sex and same level. That was considered deviant - as if raping children was not devient. So in that case it was more of a social/cultural thing.

In other ways that it could be mental is how some male boys who were continuously raped by adult men end up being gay when they grow up. Was it because of their horriable experiences or were they already inclined to homosexual feelings? I don’t know and even the experts don’t know for sure.

Another thing I heard recently was that scientists have been studying a hormone (I believe that’s what they said. I don’t think it was a gene. It has been a few months since I heard about it) that is excreted by the mother during pregnancy. I can’t remember the name of the hormone. They’ve found in their studies that if they give the lab animal more of this hormone it will take on homosexual characteristics. It’s still very early in the research process, but if that is the case, there could be a way to stop the pregnant mother from excreting those extra hormones. Anyway, I’m not a scientist, so that’s all I know about it.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I say leave gays alone, as long as they stay quiet. Sounds horrible, I know, but sexual orientation is really nobody’s business except the individual’s. Gays should go about their business, quietly, and non-gays should do the same.

I don’t know if I agree with you Paulo. I don’t advocate going to San Francisco and standing on the corner saying: Repent of Your gayness. But if we don’t talk about it, we don’t learn how to be supportive of people who struggle with this in a productive way.

If we leave gays alone and it is truly nobody’s business, should we also leave the following people who struggle with temptation or disorders alone?

Pornography Addicts

Married Pornography Addicts

Spouses who cheat

Alcoholics who drink too much (Not every alcoholic drinks alcohol, btw)

People who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder

 

[BryPGuy89]

Wikipedia has a good article about evolution. I didn’t know until recently that it was Gregor’s Mendel’s work in genetics that provided the missing link in Darwin’s evolutionary theory. An atheist and a Catholic monk turned the world upside down!

It’s not that simple to explain the inheritence of a supposed gay gene simply because it may be recessive. The gene for hair color does not affect the process by which hair color is passed down.

If I have a brown hair recessive gene and my wife has a blonde hair dominant gene. I can still pass down by brown hair recessive gene. How can a two men with a “gay gene” pass down their genes? They would have to violate what appears natural to them, wouldn’t they?

One can claim that the social taboos against homosexual relations caused the genes to be passed down. Even if that’s true, why encourage people to come out of the closet? If homosexuality is genetic, rejecting the traditional heterosexual husband and wife relationship will only lead to fewer homosexuals.

It is very simple to explain how gay genes could be in our population. In greece and rome gay partners and wifes with large families was a social must, not all were gay, but puts out the gene into the population, even today gay men have sex with women to have children. This could put “gay” genes throughout our populations. Only more recently is it unnatural for gay men to have traditional husband wife relationships, even today our social elite gay men marry and have affairs that sometimes get caught and put on the news.

 

[goofyjim]

I think the only reason to consider it a mental disorder is if the individual really longs for a heterosexual marriage but deals with the attraction. If he doesn’t feel the calling to marriage, and not everyone does, then there is no disorder because he can do the rest of his life functions quite well.

Look folks the only threat to marriage is for those who aren’t really secure in their heterosexuality to begin with. Let’s leave each other alone and do as the Rush song Nobody’s Hero says:

I knew he was different in his sexuality.
I went to his parties as a straight minority.
Never seemed a threat to my masculinity.
He only introduced me to a wider reality.

 

[emily47017]

Since there are no peer reviewed studies showing a genetic link your texbook contained specualtion and opinion…

i’ll admit a touch of irritation…

if you want to make a sweeping declaration like this, please have the intellectual honesty to browse some abstracts first. hmm, are there really no peer-reviewed studies supporting biological determination of homosexuality? follow the links below, read carefully, and decide for yourself:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17015344&ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16143171&ordinalpos=18&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15539346&ordinalpos=28&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12839890&ordinalpos=43&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

what you’ll find if you read these abstracts is that there’s a lot of really interesting work being done in this field, a lot of interesting leads and correlations and supporting evidence, and a lot of study yet to be done before anyone can stand up and say “this is how gayness happens.” there is ample evidence that homosexuality is biological in nature, either due to genetics or fetal development. when you say there isn’t any evidence, you’re not only attempting (blatantly) to shut down conversation, you’re just plain wrong.

so many people who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons work so hard to deny that there can possibly be any biological component… oh please, lord, let there be no biological component! this is understandable, as most polls show that more people are accepting of homosexuals if they think it’s biologically determined, rather than a “choice.”

be not afraid. the vatican has affirmed multiple times that science and church teaching cannot be in conflict, that they necessarily inform one another. even if gay people turn out to have been born that way, that doesn’t mean homosexual acts are no longer sinful. if we believe this to be the Truth with a capital T, we must trust in god to help us communicate this truth to the rest of the world. the truth can stand on its own; it doesn’t need to deny or bury other truths.

 

[setter]

i’ll admit a touch of irritation…

if you want to make a sweeping declaration like this, please have the intellectual honesty to browse some abstracts first. hmm, are there really no peer-reviewed studies supporting biological determination of homosexuality? follow the links below, read carefully, and decide for yourself:

what you’ll find if you read these abstracts is that there’s a lot of really interesting work being done in this field, a lot of interesting leads and correlations and supporting evidence, and a lot of study yet to be done before anyone can stand up and say “this is how gayness happens.” there is ample evidence that homosexuality is biological in nature, either due to genetics or fetal development. when you say there isn’t any evidence, you’re not only attempting (blatantly) to shut down conversation, you’re just plain wrong.

Those who are intellectually dishonestare the politically motivated gay activists who take any biological basis for homosexuality as evidence of genetic determination. This is blatantly politically motivated to further the gay agenda of mainstreaming acceptance for the “gay” lifestyle, since it ultimately is not a choice of the person, and to oppose the “gay” lifestyle is discrimination.

 

[brianwalden]

I think it is pretty straightforward. If it is genetic, then the individual has less culpability for being homosexual and for any behavior that is judged morally or legally illicit.

I don’t understand this thinking. Is a genetically verile, red-blooded heterosexual man less culpable for sex outside marriage than a genetically effeminate heterosexual man?

It doesn’t matter which sex one is attracted to, nor how strong that attraction is, we’re all called to only engage in sex within the sacrament of marriage. If being genetically homosexual dimishes one’s culpability for sexual intercourse outside of marriage, then being genetically heterosexual also dimishes one’s culpability for sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Then we’re all off the hook for sexual sins (which is exactly what a lot of people want to happen).

 

[setter]

I say leave gays alone, as long as they stay quiet. Sounds horrible, I know, but sexual orientation is really nobody’s business except the individual’s. Gays should go about their business, quietly, and non-gays should do the same.

Your ‘gospel’ version: Christians should stay silent and stand idlly by as the devil and this fallen world lead those choosing a gravely disordered and sinful lifestyle down the road to pedition – compassion not, anti-gospel yes. Take a lesson from Jesus Christ and the writers of the NT books about evangelizing those held captive to sin.

 

[pprimeau1976]

It is very simple to explain how gay genes could be in our population. In greece and rome gay partners and wifes with large families was a social must, not all were gay, but puts out the gene into the population, even today gay men have sex with women to have children. This could put “gay” genes throughout our populations. Only more recently is it unnatural for gay men to have traditional husband wife relationships, even today our social elite gay men marry and have affairs that sometimes get caught and put on the news.

The homo-sapiens species is estimated by some scientists to be 200,000 years old. Back when they were making cave paintings, why would the homosexual have sex with a woman?

The only way I think it could be genetic is if it was a result of a genetic mutation that happened when social structures were in place. But what is more offensive to a homosexual? To say you have a mental disorder or a genetic mutation?

Either way, speculating to the cause is trivial. The attraction does not excuse the action. People theorize that alcoholism is genetic, and in fact it is not classified as a disease. Yet, alcohol abuse is sinful regardless of what your genetic makeup is. Courage gets criticized by some for attempting to change the homosexual yet why does no one criticize AA for attempting to change the alcoholic?

 

[pprimeau1976]

and in fact it is not classified as a disease

I mispelled the word “now” and instead typed the word “not”. My spell czech isn’t working.

 

[goofyjim]

The homo-sapiens species is estimated by some scientists to be 200,000 years old. Back when they were making cave paintings, why would the homosexual have sex with a woman?

The only way I think it could be genetic is if it was a result of a genetic mutation that happened when social structures were in place. But what is more offensive to a homosexual? To say you have a mental disorder or a genetic mutation?

Either way, speculating to the cause is trivial. The attraction does not excuse the action. People theorize that alcoholism is genetic, and in fact it is not classified as a disease. Yet, alcohol abuse is sinful regardless of what your genetic makeup is. Courage gets criticized by some for attempting to change the homosexual yet why does no one criticize AA for attempting to change the alcoholic?

Courage does not attempt to change the homosexual. Rather it is a support group for chastity for those experiencing the orientation. Please brush up on your facts.

 

[emily47017]

Those who are intellectually dishonestare the politically motivated gay activists who take any biological basis for homosexuality as evidence of genetic determination.

which is less honest? saying “hey, here’s some really good peer-reviewed scientific studies, whose conclusions appear to support our cause!”? or sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “lalalalala – no evidence no evidence – lalalalalala”?

just because we don’t like what gay activists are trying to accomplish doesn’t mean we can pretend that what is is what ain’t. evidence is evidence. no one knows everything for sure about where gayness comes from, but we’re learning more all the time, and the more we learn, the more inadequate the freudian model becomes.

religious conservatives need to get beyond any arguments that depend on homosexual desire being a choice. the catholic church has a head start on evangelical protestants, in that her emphasis – in the catechism, in encyclicals, in the philosophies of courage – is on behavior, not desire. goofyjim has been repeating this endlessly: according to the church, the desire is not sinful; only the action is sinful. don’t take his word for it. bust open your catechism. visit www.couragerc.org. embrace this distinction, because pretty soon nobody will be able to say (with any credibility) that same sex attraction is a choice.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Courage does not attempt to change the homosexual. Rather it is a support group for chastity for those experiencing the orientation. Please brush up on your facts.

Huh? Please re-read my post. I said the following:

Courage gets criticized by some for attempting to change the homosexual

So the fact is, I never said “Courage attempts to change the homosexual.” I said that they get criticized. I did provide a link to their site so someone could decide for themselves what they attempt to do. Please brush up on your posting etiquette.

 

[emily47017]

My spell czech isn’t working.

tee hee!

 

[goofyjim]

which is less honest? saying “hey, here’s some really good peer-reviewed scientific studies, whose conclusions appear to support our cause!”? or sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “lalalalala – no evidence no evidence – lalalalalala”?

just because we don’t like what gay activists are trying to accomplish doesn’t mean we can pretend that what is is what ain’t. evidence is evidence. no one knows everything for sure about where gayness comes from, but we’re learning more all the time, and the more we learn, the more inadequate the freudian model becomes.

religious conservatives need to get beyond any arguments that depend on homosexual desire being a choice. the catholic church has a head start on evangelical protestants, in that her emphasis – in the catechism, in encyclicals, in the philosophies of courage – is on behavior, not desire. goofyjim has been repeating this endlessly: according to the church, the desire is not sinful; only the action is sinful. don’t take his word for it. bust open your catechism. visit www.couragerc.org. embrace this distinction, because pretty soon nobody will be able to say (with any credibility) that same sex attraction is a choice.

I wish we could be at that point now but so many are afraid of there being a biological cause because then it would mean God did intend some people to be this way. (Attraction, that is, not the behavior.)

 

[pprimeau1976]

I wish we could be at that point now but so many are afraid of there being a biological cause because then it would mean God did intend some people to be this way. (Attraction, that is, not the behavior.)

I am REALLY going to go out on a limb and even appear to doubletalk. I am just open to both theories.

What if Adam and Eve were biologically perfect as God intended? And what if the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate caused genetic mutations in them that introduced maladaptive genetic traits such as alcoholism, homosexual attraction, violent tendencies, etc? Genetic mutations can come about by ingestion. It could be that God did not intend people to be this way. God didn’t intend women to have labor pains either.

Faith and science can go hand in hand.

 

[goofyjim]

I am REALLY going to go out on a limb and even appear to doubletalk. I am just open to both theories.

What if Adam and Eve were biologically perfect as God intended? And what if the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate caused genetic mutations in them that introduced maladaptive genetic traits such as alcoholism, homosexual attraction, violent tendencies, etc? Genetic mutations can come about by ingestion. It could be that God did not intend people to be this way. God didn’t intend women to have labor pains either.

Faith and science can go hand in hand.

Please discontinue derogatory terms such as maladaptive when referring to the attraction. Remember I never support homosexual behavior but I don’t believe referring to the attraction as disordered or maladaptive does a person any good. Let them live in peace.

 

[GreatPipes]

Being a non religious type, I find after reading many of these religious forums on homosexuality it seems to me that the only choice involved here is someone “choosing” to believe in a imaginary, invisible man in the sky who is watching over the entire planet…or at least the relevant Christian parts of it.
You folks “choose” to believe in this. I don’t. You choose to do good things to ensure your place in heaven. I do good things because it feels good. It just feels right. For the record…my gay Christian friends and I have similar discussions. As for the procreation argument, I did my part back in the early '80’s as a registered sperm donor (some 40 offspring) supplying couples with “very high count” sperm when the husbands were not able to. Should they have been allowed to marry? My sister and her husband of 30 years are childless by choice. Should they have been allowed to marry?
I’m ranting…so I’ll leave now.