- Status
S
StevieD
Guest
You may also be interested in the frightening facts on this link:
christianorder.com/features/features_2011/features_jan11_bonus.html
christianorder.com/features/features_2011/features_jan11_bonus.html
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
For me, it is not inherited.
I only get convinced when I hear about the genes of it.
I only get convinced when I hear about the genes of it.
A
AnglicanForMary
Guest
You know, whenever I hear the argument about genetic propensities for homossexuality, I am tempted to remind the poster that alocholism (and other disorders, like possibly depression or some addictions (I think)) also has genetic triggers, and do they really want to go down a path that could possibly lead to homosexuality being placed back on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (I doubt that such placement would ever happen though)? 
I suspect I would not get a positive, or healthy response to that though.
I suspect I would not get a positive, or healthy response to that though.
M
mpartyka
Guest
I think it’s indisputable that homosexuality is at least partly biologically based. For example, if a gay person has a twin, the chance that his/her twin will also be gay is much higher if the twin is an identical twin (i.e., the original embryo split into two embryos sharing the same DNA sequence) than if the twin is a fraternal twin (i.e., there were originally two fertilized embryos with two different DNA sequences sharing the same womb). Of course, the fact that identical twins are not always both gay or both straight speaks to the fact that one’s DNA sequence is not sufficient to cause homosexuality in a person, only predispose a person toward it.
The real question, though, is why the origin of homosexuality should even matter when discussing the morality of it. A behavior doesn’t become right just because someone is inclined by their biological makeup to participate in it. If there were a genetic mutation that could make a person predisposed to incest, would incest and incestuous marriage therefore become acceptable? It cannot be argued that God intended people to be gay any more than it can be argued that God intended people to be born dwarves, or clinically depressed, or bipolar, or hairless, or blind, or anything else that might biologically go wrong with a human being. The Bible is clear that “to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor 7:2), so there is no biblical support for gay marriage, which is the only thing that could possibly make homosexual relations licit – Jesus Himself affirmed the heterosexual nature of marriage when he scolded the Pharisees asking Him about divorce, “Have you not read that in the beginning God made man male and female, and for this reason a man leaves father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and the two become one flesh?” (Matt 19:4-5) So whether homosexuality is biologically determined is beside the point – the behavior is wrong no matter where the inclination toward the behavior comes from.
The real irony of the argument that homosexuality should be condoned because it has a biological origin is that the argument carries the implication that homosexuality could rightly be outlawed if its origin were not biological – i.e., that if someone engaged in homosexual behavior for purely psychological reasons or simply as a matter of choice, that would be wrong. But the behavior is the same no matter what its origin, and it is the behavior itself that is condemned. When the Apostle Paul says that men have traded the natural for the unnatural, Apostle Paul is speaking of the act, not the inclination. There is nothing in the Bible that says a person cannot have a natural inclination to commit unnatural acts.
The real question, though, is why the origin of homosexuality should even matter when discussing the morality of it. A behavior doesn’t become right just because someone is inclined by their biological makeup to participate in it. If there were a genetic mutation that could make a person predisposed to incest, would incest and incestuous marriage therefore become acceptable? It cannot be argued that God intended people to be gay any more than it can be argued that God intended people to be born dwarves, or clinically depressed, or bipolar, or hairless, or blind, or anything else that might biologically go wrong with a human being. The Bible is clear that “to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor 7:2), so there is no biblical support for gay marriage, which is the only thing that could possibly make homosexual relations licit – Jesus Himself affirmed the heterosexual nature of marriage when he scolded the Pharisees asking Him about divorce, “Have you not read that in the beginning God made man male and female, and for this reason a man leaves father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and the two become one flesh?” (Matt 19:4-5) So whether homosexuality is biologically determined is beside the point – the behavior is wrong no matter where the inclination toward the behavior comes from.
The real irony of the argument that homosexuality should be condoned because it has a biological origin is that the argument carries the implication that homosexuality could rightly be outlawed if its origin were not biological – i.e., that if someone engaged in homosexual behavior for purely psychological reasons or simply as a matter of choice, that would be wrong. But the behavior is the same no matter what its origin, and it is the behavior itself that is condemned. When the Apostle Paul says that men have traded the natural for the unnatural, Apostle Paul is speaking of the act, not the inclination. There is nothing in the Bible that says a person cannot have a natural inclination to commit unnatural acts.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Saying Homosexuality is biologically determined would be the same like someone saying that Homosexuality is inherited. I don’t believe this. Homosexuality is a personal Choice.
I believe its the Homosexual Community at large that’s trying hard to convince society from a scientific biological level that certain men and women are born homosexual/lesbian.
My beliefs don’t mean I’m homophobic. Nor does it advocate bias as being against the person-hood of someone who is gay. Any act of sodomy by gays or heterosexuals is an abomination before God.
D
DexUK
Guest
I’ve read some of those ‘facts’.
For the sake of Truth, I am compelled by my conscience to say that most if not all of them are absolute hogwash and the conclusions they draw are meaningless to the point of being sinfully untrue and calumnious, let alone potentially harmful to people who suffer SSA.
For instance: “Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%” - Archives of Sexual Behavior (No. 2, 1999)."
So what?
I might as well say that the prevalence of white fur on dogs is 75% and the prevalence of white fur on cats is 30% therefore white fur on cats mean that that cat is actually a dog.
Just because the incidence of homosexuality amongst pedophiles might be 40% tells us PRECISELY NOTHING about the incidence of pedophilia amongst homosexuals or any predisposition to it.
Another example: The journal AIDS [July 1993] reported that so-called “monogamous” relationships did not diminish the incidence of the unhealthy sexual acts commonplace among homosexuals. Quite the reverse. A 1991-92 English study published in the same issue of AIDS found that most “unsafe” sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.
And? So what? Between two healthy monogamous same-gender partners, it is not possible to contract HIV from ‘unsafe’ sexual practises. If they didn’t have it to begin with, they aren’t going to get it while remaining monogamous, regardless of the intrinsic morals of their behaviour.
And then theres: A 2009 University of California study published in the open access journal BMC Psychiatry, found that 48.5% of homosexual and bisexual individuals reported receiving psychiatric or drug abuse treatment in the past year as compared to 22.5% of heterosexuals.
Well I don’t believe this for a second reflects true life. For a start, it’s an open-access journal about psychiatry. The survey was therefore from a self-selecting sample and becomes as a result statistically irrelevant.
From personal experience, although of course this would be statistically untested, I know and have known and have been called upon to be an informal counsellor by a number of homosexual people. Precisely TWO people, over 15 years, representing an order of magnitude less than ‘48%’ have ever acknowledged needing anything so much as a prozac in their entire lives. None whatsoever have ever gone anywhere near illegal drugs, let alone needed treatment.
I could go on, but I won’t, because it is thoroughly depressing to do so and I think I’ve made my point.
D
DexUK
Guest
Absolutely not so.
For a start, this misunderstands what ‘biologically determined’ means in respect of ‘inherited’ traits.
Biological determination in-utero can be to do with chemicals and hormones at play in the mother during pregnancy which influence the development of the unborn child. It’s not an inherited trait, but science does not yet understand the precise interplay between chemicals, hormones, etc, at the various stages of growth of the unborn.
People accept that an unborn child can be influenced by a mother’s drug taking and thereby suffer stunted growth or personality failings. Why therefore can’t there be something subtle that affects the brain of a homosexual during that person’s gestation on the same basis?
Furthermore, why can’t random genetic chance come into play? A combination of dozens of genes coming together to cause a homosexual orientation in rare cases because this was how the genetic ‘soup’ settled this time?
Finally, on this hoary old subject of ‘choice’… Let me ask you this question…
Could you, a heterosexual person, presumably with only heterosexual instincts towards members of the opposite gender to yourself, deliberately choose to have those same instincts for the same gender as yourself? Could you honestly choose to feel the same way about that person, with all the necessary elements that go along with sexual attraction (i.e. the mechanics)?
I suspect that you would find it totally impossible, to the point of finding it even so far as physically repellant to consider sexual acts with a same gender person. Why then, if it is that repellant for a ‘normal’ heterosexual person, is it suddenly possible for someone else?
M
Michaeljc4
Guest
All fetuses are female when they first begin to develop. The Y chromosome results in masculinization (the mother produces testosterone, as I recall, which causes the fetus to develop into a male). It is highly likely that, for some environmental reason, the masculinization process is incomplete, or a critical part of the brain remains feminine, which results in male homosexuality. I know much less about female homosexuality. I did this research a long time ago, but there is an area in the brain called the sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN) which, in gay men, is smaller than in heterosexual men.
Most likely, it is not genetic, but enivronmental (that is, pre-natal environment).
Most likely, it is not genetic, but enivronmental (that is, pre-natal environment).
C
centurionguard
Guest
D
DexUK
Guest
What is the point of your quote? It doesn’t address my argument, since I was not arguing about the rights and wrongs of homosexual behaviour, rather I was taking issue with the understanding of the orientation itself being a ‘choice’.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Your using the complexity of Biology itself to support your thesis.
There never has been anything absolutely conclusive to support such evidence as absolute in the psychological orientation towards homosexuality.
I’m not ignoring your argument and I agree the complexities of Biology can be very convincing scientifically in theory but nothing much proven beyond doubt.
E
essie7777
Guest
It may be interesting for this discussion to actually consider the article writers “FULL” unabridged introduction to his writings. This should put in perspective some of the points on this thread.
To engage appropriately in this subject the “religious and social conservatives” need to start dealing in FACT.
And i think he sums it up well in respect to why these falsehoods are causing more problems than can ever be justified by anyone perpetuating these myths.
Notice the author’s first points explain that all the biology, choice, comments on disordered relationships are FALSE.
To engage appropriately in this subject the “religious and social conservatives” need to start dealing in FACT.
And i think he sums it up well in respect to why these falsehoods are causing more problems than can ever be justified by anyone perpetuating these myths.
All Quotes from the original article by Standon L Jones “Sexual Orientation and Reason: On the Implications of False Beliefs about Homosexuality”
M
mpartyka
Guest
I also think it is important to distinguish between biological desire and psychological desire. A homosexual man may be biologically aroused by the chemical makeup (e.g., testosterone in male sweat) of another man, but that is what I would call biological arousal, not psychological arousal. Psychological arousal, in my opinion, is an attraction to masculinity as an idea – i.e., being attracted to the concept of a man, not merely the biological makeup of a man. I think an argument can be made that these are two separate things.
For example, I have a female friend who is physically female but says that she perceives her gender identity as male – i.e., she is transgender, a man in a woman’s body. I find myself attracted to her physically – she is physically female, after all – but because she presents herself outwardly (e.g., mannerisms, haircut, sports bra, never wears a dress), I cannot bring myself to hit on her because of both her outwardly masculine affect and her confession of inward identification with the male gender. As a heterosexual male I am not only seeking a woman biologically but a woman in concept as well. The idea of her being a man wearing the outward appearance of a woman is nearly as unattractive to me as her being a man in toto. And since she is biologically female, my feelings of repulsion cannot be the result of biology. Indeed, I’m half-tempted to say that if she were to someday confess to me that she was wrong in her original self-assessment – that she is indeed a woman, just a rather masculine woman – I would no longer feel resistant to the idea of dating her. (Then again, I actually know one woman who identifies as a woman but is very masculine in affect, and I do not find her attractive, either. It suppose my standard is something like, “If she would look completely out of place in a dress, she’s too masculine for me.”)
In summary, and I admit this is mostly speculation on my part, I would say that there is both a biological basis for sexual attraction and a psychological basis for sexual attraction, and in a homosexual person both “switches,” as they were, have been flipped to “same-gender attraction.”
M
mpartyka
Guest
Another reason I speak of psychological arousal as opposed to biological arousal is due to pornography. A heterosexual man who looks at a naked woman on a piece of paper or on television isn’t actually getting any chemical cues from the paper or television. It is the concept of the woman’s naked form that he finds arousing.
I don’t know…I’m not a psychologist, just throwing some ideas out there. Maybe someone with a better idea of how brain chemistry works can pitch in.
I don’t know…I’m not a psychologist, just throwing some ideas out there. Maybe someone with a better idea of how brain chemistry works can pitch in.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
perhaps but it is also irrelevant to the question of the morality of homosexual activity
there is evidence that some psychopathic behaviors may be biologically determined but that does not make them acceptable or morally justified.
There is also a huge difference btw between “biologically determined” which can apply to any prenatal influence and “genetic” which applies only to gene linked traits or mutations.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
You raised an important distinction, genetic =/= biological, as many conflate the two terms. Genetics is a discipline in biology. A genetic risk refers to something within the genetic code and heredity. A biological risk would cover agents and processes outside a human’s hereditary material (DNA) or an organism, that would fall under environmental factors that have an effect on its development if not its life.
This distinction aside, when we discuss choice, it is important to make a clarification as well. Many if not all would agree that the ‘no choice’ part has to do with an attraction one feels toward members of the same sex. The choosing part is deciding to act or action towards homogenital expression of the attraction.
Studies so far have failed to provide a loci that determines sexuality. At the most, scientific studies tell us that homosexuality may have a genetic component and/or may be the result of events during fetal development, such as showers of hormones and biological factors with effects in utero, and/or pyscho-social factors in early child development.
There are many people who have concerns and vested interests in the topic, with information from so called ‘discoveries’ used by said people in positive and negative ways. The gay community gets excited to find that the life-style they live is not entirely a choice that they made. If the world falls in line with the idea that homosexuality is something people are born with, just like skin or eye color (an unproven argument that pro-gays frequently advance), then people will begin to be more accepting of the homosexual life-style. From this thinking, there will certainly be groups of people who would posit that if homosexuality is in fact genetically linked, then there should be a way to genetically alter homosexuals in order to make them “normal.” Just like genetically modified/engineered crops! Or worse, it could lead to selective abortion as what maternal patients avail of now following prenatal tests, e.g., amniocentesis and AFP levels to detect trisomy and spina bifida.
,
S
St_Francis
Guest
Your example was totally unrelated to what was said. What was said is: There is x% of homosexuals, group A. There is Y% of pedophiles, group B. What the above is saying is that 30 to 40% of the members of group B are also members of group A, which means that a very high percentage of group A is pedophilic compared to the general population given that Group A forms a very small percentage of the general population. So the study does indeed tell us something about the incidence of pedophilia amongst homosexuals.*
Of course, since none of the percentages are known, we just don’t know what they are telling us.
They did not say “unsafe” sexual acts; they said unhealthy. Some homosexual sexual activities are inherently dangerous apart from the issue of STDs.
biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/9/52
It is the journal which is open access, not the study, and the journal is peer-rreviewed, so I doubt they would allow a study based on a self-selected sample.
The study I found which may be the one referred to says this: *Survey data were obtained from a population-based probability sample of California residents that oversampled for sexual minorities. Logistic regression was used to model the enabling, predisposing, and need-related factors associated with past-year mental health or substance abuse treatment utilization among adults aged 18–64 (N = 2,074). *
Well, I don’t know that you have, esp considering the most people who, say, avoid illegal drugs tend to not hang out with or be confided in by people who use illegal drugs, and so on.
E
essie7777
Guest
You may be right the reporting on an abbreviated report about an article kind of loses it’s point a little.
The orignal article is much more interesting and very balanced on both the failures of the religous and conservative community as well as the LGBT community.
It may be worth a read as it tackles your point head on … link here
M
mpartyka
Guest
From the article: “It was her goal to gather a sample of homosexual men who demonstrably were not mentally ill, and to thus challenge the hegemony of the disease conception.”
But doesn’t that assume rather than prove that homosexuality is not in itself at least partly a mental illness? Seems to me that if pedophilia is a mental illness because it drives people to desire those whom they biologically ought not to desire, the same can be said of homosexuality, for in that case, too, the object of one’s desire is not one whom one biologically ought to desire. If the target is wrong in itself, then the desire for the target is wrong in itself, too.
- Status