Homosexuality

[Edwin1961]

mlchance:

…is that everyone consents to whatever activity is performed.

This attitude is dangerous spiritually, emotionally, physically, and culturally.
– Mark L. Chance.

Mark,
That is why I would like to get ‘my testimony’ out into the world. I lived It. The dangers of the spiritual, emotion, the physical and the cultural dangers.
I am prayfully discerning on getting my story out.

 

[puzzleannie]

Tlaloc:

Actually there is evidence that homosexuality can have genetic roots.

Specifically there are twin studies which show higher incidence of both twins being homosexual if the twins are identical as opposed to non-identical.

.

there are also many “twin studies” that show opposite results, that a twin of a homosexual is not any more likely to exhibit the same trait than a non-related person. be extremely careful of the source of the “science” you cite on this issue. Some extremely flawed pseudo science is pushed as proof of all kinds of things.

 

[Pious_Redeemer]

Edwin 1961 wrote:

For personal experiences, I was Led into the homosexual lifestyle because of my environment. I do not believe anything like this is biological. The early esperiences that I had growing up lead me to the life I Once lead for 27 years of my life.

I don’t think you can say that it was a deliberate choice of yours.

Whether homosexuality is genetic (genotype) or a result of environmental factors (phenotype), or a mixture of both, I think, in most cases, it is not a deliberate, free choice, especially not among Catholics since they know our Churches teachings on the subject. Acting upon it is another thing of course.

 

[Ghosty]

To quote an artist that I’m sure most people on this forum can’t STAND:

They say music can alter moods and talk to you
but can it load a gun for you and cock it too?

The point being that many things can influence you, but in the end it’s your actions that matter. Personally I believe that there are some biological AND environmental components to homosexual urges, but that’s irrelevant. There are also biological and environmental components to homicidal rage. The sin is in embracing what we know to be wrong, regardless of the pressures. Any blaming of biological or environmental factors is dodging the real issue.

One thing that must also be remembered is that homosexuals must be treated charitably regardless of the reasons for their actions. While the factors may be irrelevant in determining if something is wrong, they aren’t irrelevant in understanding why a person behaves a certain way, and finding the best way to help them onto the right path.

 

[Batgirl1415]

Batgirl1415,

I will assume that you attend a high school. I attended high school for over 35 year. I was a high school teacher of Chemistry and a coach.

From your original post you relate that you are interacting with some other students who evidently disagree with Catholic Dogma. Hoow did they learn of your Catholic beliefs? How did yyou learn of their beliefs.

The way you wrote that original post you made it sound like the majority of the students are homosexual. I just don’t believe that.

In all my years as a H.S. Chemistry teacher I never heard students talking about homosexuality, and I never knew of a homosexual student in my classes.

I would tell you if yyou were my daughter to refrain from talking about sexual issues aat school. It’s not the place to talk about sex.

Well, it’s a Catholic school. And no, of course not MOST of them are homosexual but most of them are liberals who think homosexuality is alright.

I don’t know when you taught at highschool but sexuality is always talked about today. Especially since homosexuality is being embraced by so many.

Gossip is how I find out about everything. It’s a fairly small school and gossip spreads like wildfire.
And it’s just obvious whether someone is homosexual. If a guy is talking like a girl constantly and walks like a girl constantly then that’s a major sign he’s homosexual.

I don’t have a choice not to talk about sexual issues. When people are making claims against my faith I have to defend it. There’s no avoiding it. It must be talked about before it’s turned into a normal and acceptable thing.
It’s not my fault people love to talk about sex. If it was my choice I wouldn’t talk about it.

 

[Batgirl1415]

I have a question though. How can homosexuality be genetic? That would mean that one of the parents is homosexual wouldn’t it?
Which would mean it could be traced back to Adam and Eve who were most certainly not homosexual.

 

[JamesD]

Batgirl1415:

I have a question though. How can homosexuality be genetic? That would mean that one of the parents is homosexual wouldn’t it?
Which would mean it could be traced back to Adam and Eve who were most certainly not homosexual.

I have never seen any good evidence that homosexuality is genetic. I am just playing devil’s advocate to you questions.
There are genetic diseases that will kill before the child reaches puberty. If the parents had the disease they could not have had the child (they would have died first). This can be caused by haveing to inherit a certain group of genes some from Mom & some from Dad. They are put together in the childs genetic makeup, but the combination did not exist in either of the parents. The parents had to share genes (within the child) in order to cause the disease.

There are a great number of diseases that are caused by genetics. Adam and Eve did not have all of these diseases. One reason might be the example above. But, I tend to think that perhaps these disease causing genes are mutations. Mutations due to virus, or cosmic rays, or (dare I say) SIN.

Jim

 

[Batgirl1415]

Hmm, true.

But even then, it’s admiting that homosexuality is like a desease. It’s like a mutation.

 

[_pro-life_teen]

Batgirl1415:

Well, it’s a Catholic school. And no, of course not MOST of them are homosexual but most of them are liberals who think homosexuality is alright.

I don’t know when you taught at highschool but sexuality is always talked about today. Especially since homosexuality is being embraced by so many.

Gossip is how I find out about everything. It’s a fairly small school and gossip spreads like wildfire.
And it’s just obvious whether someone is homosexual. If a guy is talking like a girl constantly and walks like a girl constantly then that’s a major sign he’s homosexual.

I don’t have a choice not to talk about sexual issues. When people are making claims against my faith I have to defend it. There’s no avoiding it. It must be talked about before it’s turned into a normal and acceptable thing.
It’s not my fault people love to talk about sex. If it was my choice I wouldn’t talk about it.

excellent post.

I face a similar situation at my small, Catholic high school. It’s impossible to state your views and not be labeled a “homophobe.” (Which, may I point out, medically doesn’t even exist- I’ve never heard of a documented, medically accurate, diagnosed case of actual homophobia (correct me if I’m wrong). You know, in the sense that people who have agoraphobia CANNOT be in public places without medication)

As batgirl said, sex is talked about everywhere, all the time… and all the teachers know who is “out.”

One of our teachers told us that homosexual men had glands that produced more estrogen than normal and lesbains produced more testosterone and that there is rarely someone who is 100% gay or 100% straight. She said it’s like a continnuum, with bisexual people falling around the middle.

I’m kinda suspicious about who actually found this out and published this info, though.

Also, wasn’t homosexuality diagnosed as a mental illness not too long ago? I read a booklet that said pressure from the homosexual community caused psychologists to remove it from the list.

Anyway, keep up your strength and convictions batgirl; I’ll be praying for you!

 

[JamesD]

*pro-life_teen*:

excellent post.
Also, wasn’t homosexuality diagnosed as a mental illness not too long ago? I read a booklet that said pressure from the homosexual community caused psychologists to remove it from the list.

You are correct. At one time it was considered an illness and that was changed.
It is interesting to note that the psychologist who led the charge to remove its classification as an illness now thinks it was a mistake. I do not know the details (who, when). Perhaps someone else on this forum can help us with the details.
Anyone?

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Aha! You are Ken/Zoot and now reincarnated as Tlaloc. I thought your style looked familar.

Sorry, no. I’ve only posted here as “Tlaloc”. In fact I’ve only posted as “Tlaloc” on any of the forums I’ve used. I can point you to a couple of them if you like.

Now that you have dusted off the same tired statistics you’ve posted on about three other threads, you’ve shown your hand.

And? You asked me for the data, which is reasonable, now I’ve given you a sample.

As to serial killers, actually you have clued in on a subject where I’ve done a great deal of reading. These men did not become seriel killers due to sexual frustration. Rape is not a sex crime as much as it is a crime of power. Serial killers often have a sociopathic personality. They do not consider other humans as being human. IOW they have no empathy. Serial killers speak of the power they wielded in their role, not just the power over the individual woman but the power of fear over a community and the power of frustrating law enforcement. Again it’s not some poor guy who can’t get a date…As one killer said when you watch the life go out of a person before your eyes, you are god…It’s the ulitmate power trip. Look at Gary Ridgeway, he didn’t HAVE to kill any of those women. He liked it.

Of course, but why did he like it? A number of serial killers (not all) have severely skewed sexual impulses that link violence with sexual gratification. A number of them can only reach orgasm when they do their ritual. Sexual frustration is most certainly a part of the equation (again in many cases, not all). The point being that sexual frustration can indeed be a component in serious mental illness. Serial killers are by far the most extreme example but even in everyday people to claim sexual frustration causes no harm is simply false.

What grotesque stereotypes? I’m dying to know.

The ones you chose to use when describing homosexual relations.

As to this study you have quoted before,not it was LARGEST GROWING group. Not largest group. So if you had 100 AIDS cases and last year one was a heterosexual black woman and this year there were two there would be a 100% increase. That’s pretty speedy but the total numbers are not significant. Sorry that dog still don’t hunt.

The point is that if heterosexual black women represent the largest growing group then perhaps you should revise your notions of AIDS being a gay disease. You’re about two decades behind the facts.

 

[Tlaloc]

mlchance:

No, there isn’t.

Uh-huh! Seriously you can feel free to dispute the findings but the evidence is there. Feel free to provide the twin studies that don’t show the trend in dizygotic vs monozygotic twins. I’ll wait.

“The sampling method employed in this study falls short of the ideal genetic epidemiological study, which would involve systematic sampling from a well-specified population. In particular, although all recruiting advertisements stated that [subjects] were desired regardless of the sexual orientation of their relatives, there is no guarantee that volunteers heeded this request.” Source: Bailey and Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 48 (December 1991).

Okay. All this says is there’s no guarantee that the population was suitably random. Fine, is there any reason to believe that it wasn’t? Don’t grab the straws so hard or they tend to snap.

Follow up research confirmed that Bailey and Pillard did not employ “a systematically ascertained sample of twins. Subjects were recruited through advertisements placed in homosexual-oriented periodicals and, therefore, may not be typical of the homosexual population at large.” Source: Byne and Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 50 (March 1993).

Which means that the specific amount of dizygotic to monozygotic ratio of concordance may be off but shouldn’t affect the trend.

From the previous source: “The concordance rate for homosexuality in nontwin biologic brothers was only 9.2 percent - significantly lower that that required by a simple genetic hypothesis.” “Furthermore, the fact that the concordance rates were similar for nontwin biologic brothers (9.2 percent) and genetically unrelated adoptive brothers (11.0 percent) is at odds with a simple genetic hypothesis, which would predict a higher concordance rate for biologic siblings.”

No one is suggesting the “simple genetic hypothesis” (i.e. that genetics alone determine sexual orientation). So while the source is technically correct, it’s also irrelevent to the question at hand.

Bailey and Pillard, in “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” admit that twin studies have failed to demonstrate a genetic cause: “Buhrich et al reported a twin study of sexual orientation and related behaviors. They found a strong familial resemblance, but had insufficient power to determine whether that correlation was due to genetic or environmental factors or both.”

This is simply false. The vast difference in dizygotic and monozygotic concordance rates is the determining factor between genetic and environmental.

There is also Dean Hamer’s work. Hamer does not claim to have found a genetic cause for homosexuality.
“Although the observed rates of homosexual orientation in the maternally derived uncles and male cousins of gay men were higher than in female and paternally related male relatives, they were lower than would be expected for a simple Mendelian trait.” Source: Hamer, et al. “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science 261 (1993).

Again all this says is that a genetics only answer is false. Well duh. That was never in question. But notice it supports the hypothesis that genetics plays a factor.

“At present, we can say nothing about the fraction of all instances of male homosexuality that are related or unrelated to the Xq28 candidate locus.” Same source as above.

Which has nothing to do with the data I quoted. Do you not understand the difference between these two questions:
“Is there a genetic factor to homosexuality?” (Yes)
“which genes are they that play a role?” (Don’t know yet)

“Given the overall complexity of human sexuality, it is not surprising that a single genetic locus does not account for all the observed variability.” Same source as above.

Again: Duh.

It is also noteworthy that there hasn’t been any success in replicating Hamer’s original study. See George Rice, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, and George Ebers, “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28,” Science, 284 (April 1999). From this study: “These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.”

As above this speaks only to the location of said genetic factors, not their existence.

There is no convincing scientific evidence of a genetic cause for homosexuality. The primary causes are social and psychological.

You have a hard time keeping premises straight apparently. There is evidence that Homosexuality has a genetic factor. The evidence is pretty convincing when not muddled by someone introducing a bunch of data that doesn’t relate to the issue.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Mark did you see this? Recent studies debunk 'gay gene"

massnews.com/2005_editions/2_february/2105_gay_gene_study.htm
Lisa N

It really isn’t a good source Lisa. They make some pretty obvious logic faults. Not the least of which is simply not understanding that multiple genes can easily play a role in complex human behaviors. They approach the subject with a minimal understanding of genetics and proceed to cast aspersions on the works of professionals.

It’s no different than the people who claim we couldn’t have landed on the moon. Their ignorance counts much more for them than scientific evidence.

 

[Tlaloc]

jeffreedy789:

even if people are born with an inherent attraction for the same sex, it doesn’t make homosexual behavior acceptable or take away its sin value. just like being born with a tendency to be promiscuous doesn’t make sleeping around less sinful. everyone has ‘tendencies’ toward certain sins. those who have tendencies toward homosexuality have the same cross to carry that all of us do - to die to ourselves daily, and follow Him.

no ‘study’ is going to change that.

If that’s how you choose to view it that’s fine. I have no desire to try and convince you that homosexuality should be accepted by Catholics. I simply point out that the idea that homosexuality has no genetic basis is false according to the data. How you reconcile that with your faith is up to you.

 

[Tlaloc]

puzzleannie:

there are also many “twin studies” that show opposite results, that a twin of a homosexual is not any more likely to exhibit the same trait than a non-related person.

By all means link to them.

 

[Tlaloc]

Batgirl1415:

I have a question though. How can homosexuality be genetic? That would mean that one of the parents is homosexual wouldn’t it?
Which would mean it could be traced back to Adam and Eve who were most certainly not homosexual.

It’s not a matter of simple genetics. You have to understand that the genome contains a phenomenal amount of information and that various genes can interact in surprising ways.

Being gay and having some component of that be genetic doesn’t mean that either of your parents per se were gay. Rather it may be some combination of multiple genes from both of them. Hence why the twin studies are so helpful.

Let me ask you this:
Hair color is genetic right? And so is eye color. So what hair and eye color were Adam and Eve? Even if you believe in genesis as a literal instead of figurative parable you have to allow for considerable human genetic diversification since then.

 

[Tlaloc]

JamesD:

You are correct. At one time it was considered an illness and that was changed.
It is interesting to note that the psychologist who led the charge to remove its classification as an illness now thinks it was a mistake. I do not know the details (who, when). Perhaps someone else on this forum can help us with the details.
Anyone?

psych.org/public_info/homose~1.cfm

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

Sorry, no. I’ve only posted here as “Tlaloc”. In fact I’ve only posted as “Tlaloc” on any of the forums I’ve used. I can point you to a couple of them if you like. .

Anyone who hides behind a pseudonym will always be suspect. If you are not 'Ken" “Zoot” et all, you are his twin. Same style, same crusades, same attitude.

Tlaloc:

And? You asked me for the data, which is reasonable, now I’ve given you a sample.

Tlaloc:

It’s been so long I don’t even remember asking

Tlaloc:

Of course, but why did he like it? A number of serial killers (not all) have severely skewed sexual impulses that link violence with sexual gratification. A number of them can only reach orgasm when they do their ritual. Sexual frustration is most certainly a part of the equation (again in many cases, not all). The point being that sexual frustration can indeed be a component in serious mental illness. Serial killers are by far the most extreme example but even in everyday people to claim sexual frustration causes no harm is simply false.

First I never said sexual frustration causes ‘no’ harm but the idea that the average person who is stimulated but unable to engage is going to explode is utterly ridiculous or we’d have had many exploding, violent, rampaging teenage boys over the years.

Sexually violent individuals are a completely different animal and I do mean that literally. You cannot claim that the damage done by a Ted Bundy, a Jeffrey Dahmer, a Dayton Leroy Rogers, a Gary Leon Ridgeway is caused by ANYTHING like normal sexual frustration that probably every human being experiences at some point in time. Only the tiny minority act out violently and there is always the question, did the violence come first or was it the sex?

Or are you saying that if homosexuals in general are unable to get sexual gratification their way, they will all turn into seriel killers? Can’t have it both ways Tlaloc/Ken/Zoot.

Tlaloc:

The ones you chose to use when describing homosexual relations.

So you have a more esthetic description of sodomy? Somehow it is hard NOT to consider the grotesquery. After all we are using body parts for activities never intended and the results are really not very pretty.

Tlaloc:

The point is that if heterosexual black women represent the largest growing group then perhaps you should revise your notions of AIDS being a gay disease. You’re about two decades behind the facts.

I didn’t say it was a ‘gay disease’ as that depends entirely on the country you are referring to. OTOH given that black women were such a tiny minority of cases, any increase represents a higher percentage increase than if you were talking about a majority population. Can you post figures about which groups have the highest incidence of AIDS? Something tells me that in the US the homosexual male is still in the lead in this macabre race.

Lisa N

 

[Ghosty]

Anyone who hides behind a pseudonym will always be suspect. If you are not 'Ken" “Zoot” et all, you are his twin. Same style, same crusades, same attitude.

To be fair, there is no sure way to know that your real name is Lisa. Let’s be charitable and assume that people are indeed who they say they are. There is absolutely no reason to do otherwise.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Lisa N:

Anyone who hides behind a pseudonym will always be suspect. If you are not 'Ken" “Zoot” et all, you are his twin. Same style, same crusades, same attitude.

I always wondered about the thought process behind the pseudonym “Zoot”. And it is hilarious how the same arguments keep popping up again and again. Back when he was “Ken” on the defunct politics forum I tried to draw him out on his political stances as he sounded Libertarian in an Ayn Randish kind of way, but no luck–he wouldn’t rise to the bait.

We veterans of the Ken/Zoot battles gotta stick together.