Is Homosexuality Biologically Determined?/New Insight into Research

[essie7777]

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.

Can you direct me to where this quote is, i have no idea what or who it refers to so can’t comment …yet

Thanks

 

[DexUK]

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.

Let me try to explain it to you. Stick with me - statistical analysis is not only interesting, it’s also vital if you’re using the statistics to draw moral conclusions, since you really do need to be honest about it.

There are unknown numbers of group A (homosexuals), unknown numbers of group B (pedophiles) and unknown numbers of group C (heterosexuals).

Members of group B must, by definition, also belong to either A or C (or in very very rare statistically insignificant cases, both groups). It is therefore, by definition, not possible for members of group B to not belong to either A or C.

Not all members of either Group A or C necessarily belong to group B.

I think most people would agree that Group B (pedophiles) represents a tiny proportion of the total of Group A and C (being the whole population of the world of either orientation) - otherwise prisons would be overflowing with pedophiles.

Evidence appears to suggest that there is a 40% chance that members of group B also belong to group A, otherwise they also belong to group C.

The position that because 40% of group B (pedophiles) also belongs to group A (homosexuals) does not in ANY way prove that group A (homosexuals) has a high absolute percentage of its members being also of Group B (pedophiles) since we do not know the numbers involved in both groups. We do know that group A (homosexuals) has some members who are in group B (pedophiles) and likewise, group C (heterosexuals) also has some members (numerically about 50% more) who are also members of group B.

The point the author of this “statistic” is trying to draw out (by deliberately conflating mismatching samples) is that homosexuals are automatically predisposed to being pedophiles, which is totally unsupportable by simple maths, and instead may well be being done from the point of view of supporting ingrained prejudices.

Now depending on the numbers involved, if the 40% hit rate is accurate, the chances of a homosexual being also a pedophile are higher than a heterosexual being a pedophile if we accept that that homosexuals represent a smaller percentage of the total population (which they do).

I’m now going to try to illustrate this with figures.

To have any idea of what chance someone has to be both a homosexual or a heterosexual AND a pedophile, we need to have some idea of how many pedophiles in total there are and what percentage of the population is hetero- or homo-sexual.

So… let’s assume that homosexuals represent 5% of the total population - I think that’s a reasonable estimate, being somewhere in the middle of various surveys that place the percentage ranging from 2% to 8%, depending on the slant of the source.

Now I can’t find any sources that give any indication of the incidence of pedophilia in the population. So lets just take an assumption… Let’s assume that 10 in 10,000 people have pedophiliac tendencies, whether or not acted upon. Personally I’d have said that was astronomically high, but let’s go with it to illustrate the maths (if anyone has any authoritative sources of figures I’ll willingly revise my sums). Of this 10,000 people, 500 might be assumed to be homosexual. That means, on the basis of their being a 40% chance of a pedophile being also homosexual, that there are 4 pedophiles in the 10,000 random sample who are homosexual, and 6 who are heterosexual. so there’s a 4 in 500 chance that any random homosexual might also be a pedophile and a 6 in 9500 chance of a heterosexual being a pedophile. Expressed as likelihood, a homosexual is potentially 19 times more likely to be a pedophile than a heterosexual might be (if you believe the figures), but that likelihood does not illustrate much.

The conclusion you have to draw, because there’s no other conclusion available, is that a 19 x more likely chance of something that is very very tiny is still very tiny.

Unless the quantity of pedophiles in a population is approaching that of the quantity of homosexuals, you cannot get to a mathematically supportable position whereby you can say that the chances of a homosexual being a pedophile is ‘very high’.

I deal with mathematics and logic every day of my life. I know what I’m talking about. When people draw conclusions about homosexuals having a high chance of being pedophiles they would seem to mean that if you take two homosexuals, the predominant likelihood is that one or both of them is also a pedophile.

That is unsupportable because there is no evidence to support it so to perpetuate this conclusion is to perpetuate something which cannot be known to be true, and without knowing it to be true it cannot be stated, as it is in so many places, to be a fact. On that basis it is entirely wrong to suggest that homosexuals are particularly susceptible to pedophiliac tendencies. Some - a few, probably less than 1 or 2% - might be. That’s all we can say. It might be more than you’d find in the heterosexual population, but it’s still not something you’d expect to find in the homosexual population.

 

[mpartyka]

Can you direct me to where this quote is, i have no idea what or who it refers to so can’t comment …yet

Sorry, it’s from the article that was linked to earlier: wheaton.edu/CACE/Hot-Topics

It’s the last line of the eighth(?) paragraph down.

 

[St_Francis]

I understand what you write here–my objection was that your analogy was misleading and your conclusion obscure.

Let me try to explain it to you. Stick with me - statistical analysis is not only interesting, it’s also vital if you’re using the statistics to draw moral conclusions, since you really do need to be honest about it…

 

[essie7777]

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.

Okay - found it. IMO i think you are reading one sentance out of context, allow me to explain. I apologize this is going to create a long post ot two as i want to include all relevent references.

The author, a well respected Professor of Psychology who is a vocal Christain ethics writer explains how we can not afford to ignore the factual evidence, methodolgy and results that Hooker used to prove her hypothesis.

The very first paragraph of this articles states:

Homosexuality in particular, and sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexuality in general, are enormously complex topics, about which religious and social conservatives are prone to believe a number of falsehoods. This reality exposes us to derision in the public arena and weakens our capacity to engage this issue effectively. These false assertions include that:

• homosexuality is properly understood as a mental illness, and all homosexual persons are deeply psychologically disturbed (even if some are capable of hiding their pathology),

So immediately Stanton L Jones is making very clear this belief is ABSOLUTELY FALSE, his premise for the article being that perpetuating myths and falsehoods such as this does nothing more than cause the public arena to in essense “mock” our inability to stay factual.

In respect to Hooker’s study, Jones explains the background to the false disease model and acknowledges in Paragrapgh 3 that Hooker deserves credit for her study and its process:

And so I begin by paying homage to a gay affirming and activist scientist, Dr. Evelyn Hooker, who, in her advocacy, managed to maintain a clearheaded allegiance to proper scientific standards and thus is worthy of emulation.

By the early middle of the 20th century, **the longstanding religious and moral disapproval of “sodomy” had given ground to a construal of homosexuality as a mental illness.**1] The instruments of governmental policy embraced and indeed became dependent upon that pathology narrative; whereas “sodomites” might once have been barred or dismissed from the military or from government posts on moral grounds, now they were treated as disordered. Long-standing sodomy laws, regardless of their historical roots in religious teaching, came to be understood and explained in terms of the psychopathology of homosexuality.

Homosexulaity as a mental disease is Not therefore a diagnosis based in psychological pathological fact, but rather in public opinion of the era being used to identify a “disease” where there wasn’t one. And as a consequence was responsible for creating large nation wide discrimination across all areas of life for homosexuals:

Jones goes on to explain how this myth of disease (ie Mental illness) was being challenged by the mid 20th Century.

When you review all he has to say on the Hooker study it becomes clear that he has unmitigated repect and admiration for Hooker’s methodology and her research skills.

He also explains that a lot of people don’t appreciate what her study actually did, and with no disrespect i think you are misundertanding this as well. The study was not about proving the morality of homosexuality but rather disproving that the “disease” model perpetuated by opinion and culture was not empirically scientifcally proven with pathology.

If you examine all that he wrote on this you can appreciate what he is saying.

But no single study contributed more to the demise of the disease conceptualization than Hooker’s. The broader dimensions of the dialogue about homosexuality in the 1940s and 50s in the Western world were framed by the disease concept, and Hooker’s research struck at the heart of this conceptualization. Hooker is enshrined deservedly in the hagiography of the gay affirming movement.
Her seminal study is often cited as having established that homosexual individuals are just as psychologically healthy as heterosexual individuals, but this is a profound misunderstanding of her research. In an **era in which homosexuality was considered intrinsically pathological, and in which almost all studies of homosexual persons drew on patient or prison populations and thus reinforced the disease concept, Hooker set out to “obtain a sample of overt homosexuals who did not come from these sources [clinics, psychiatric hospitals or prisons]; that is, who had a chance of being individuals who, on the surface at least, seem to have an average adjustment.”**2] It is particularly impressive to me, immersed in the context of considerable confusion about scientific standards, that Hooker was remarkably clear about the scientific logic of her study…(next post)

Cont next post

 

[essie7777]

Cont from previous post:

…cont from previous post…Implicitly invoking Popperian falsificationism, Hooker recognized that in the face of an absolute claim that all homosexuals are pathological, it only required one disconfirming case to bring the professional consensus crashing down. 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.

Notice that Jones is critical of the studies done to perpetuate the myth of homosexulaity as a disease as their sampling was not of “average adjustment”. To explain if studies on heterosexuals were only conducted on people in locked down mental institutions and prisons for example imagine the pyschological pathology that could be used to “explain” hetrosexuals. Clearly this is weighting the “studies” to a negative and as such not capable of proving anything of value to the “average” heterosexual.

snipped for space- paragrapgh explaining method sampling…Hooker tested her subjects using the gold standard of the day: the projective assessment methods of the Rorschach Ink Blot Test, the Thematic Apperception Test, and a few other tests. Subject responses were transcripted, scored objectively, and then evaluated by premier scholars of the day in each of these projective methods who offered their diagnostic judgments for each of her subject protocols “blind” to the sexual orientation status of each of the subjects.

Here Jones is clearly analysising and agreeing with her methodology, sampling etc. So the sentance you quote is nothing more than a descriptor - its not a judgement for the research to be based on false misrepresenting samples.

Using this as a basis for suggesting that there actually may be a psychological disease (mental illness) as your post suggests is ignoring the validity and purpose of the study. The author an eminant speacialist on Christain ethics acknowledges that is falsehood so surely we must concur to his knowledge and authority??

The results were stunning, even revolutionary. With almost total agreement, the expert diagnosticians rated the psychological adjustment of the homosexual sample as equivalent to the heterosexuals, and could not do better than chance in discriminating the homosexuals from the heterosexuals. It was clear in the data from this select sample that sexual orientation had no direct bearing on psychological adjustment. The prevailing scientific hypothesis had been refuted; in Hooker’s terms, “clearly there is no inherent connection between pathology and homosexuality.”[5]

Though it took awhile – 15 years between her initial publication and the decision by the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic manual as a distinct diagnostic category– Hooker had succeeded, with one compelling, well-designed study, in demolishing the reigning consensus of her day. Science had said that homosexual persons were necessarily, inherently, and absolutely pathological. Hooker’s subjects and results confounded that claim.

Notice Jones does not disagree with her finding at all.

Rather:

I find in Evelyn Hooker a model of clearheaded thinking about the very logic of science itself, and an admirable adherence to transparent, careful and defensible methodological standards. Sadly, too many gay affirming scholars following in her footsteps have not embodied the same virtues. Hooker’s work stands as a testament that researcher’s ideological commitments can coexist with good scholarship.

It is interesting to note that Jones goes on to explain that:

There are few ideologically conservative scholars publishing studies relevant to sexual orientation today.

This makes it very difficult to be involved in this discussion as so few are even doing work on it. Jones is critical of this.

Yet the failure of dissenting voices to appear in the dialogue is striking. One lesson from the Evelyn Hooker narrative is that those who dissent from the dominant professional viewpoint can do good science, can contribute something valuable, and can be agents of change.

I think the article does a very good job of dispelling the myths about the Hooker study. the LGBT community use it to say that LGBT people are “just as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals” and religous conservative ignore what the study actually did, “clear in the data from this select sample that sexual orientation had no direct bearing on psychological adjustment. The prevailing scientific hypothesis had been refuted”. Both viewpoints are fundamentally false.

Agreeing that there is no pathology for a disease model for homosexuality does not take away from the religous and conservative opinions on Homosexuality.

IMO, your position is perpetuating a myth by trying to rewrite what has been examined and judged as a valid, well constructed and highly impressive study (for what it was!?!?!).

 

[mpartyka]

Using this as a basis for suggesting that there actually may be a psychological disease (mental illness) as your post suggests is ignoring the validity and purpose of the study.

I think the problem is that I don’t understand what constitutes a mental illness. When I think of mental illness, I think of things that I have heard classified as mental illness – e.g., bipolar disorder, clinical depression, OCD – and from these examples I form the definition, “Mental illness occurs when there is something wrong with the brain such that it does not behave the way it should, as evidenced in certain abnormal behaviors.” Is this not a correct definition of mental illness? Because if it is correct, I fail to see how both pedophilia and homosexuality do not fall under this definition, as it is unquestionably abnormal to sexually desire and/or pursue someone with whom one is not designed to reproduce (i.e., prepubescent children, persons of the same gender). So the general question I have is, what does it mean to be “mentally ill”?

 

[essie7777]

I think the problem is that I don’t understand what constitutes a mental illness. When I think of mental illness, I think of things that I have heard classified as mental illness – e.g., bipolar disorder, clinical depression, OCD – and from these examples I form the definition, “Mental illness occurs when there is something wrong with the brain such that it does not behave the way it should, as evidenced in certain abnormal behaviors.” Is this not a correct definition of mental illness? Because if it is correct, I fail to see how both pedophilia and homosexuality do not fall under this definition, as it is unquestionably abnormal to sexually desire and/or pursue someone with whom one is not designed to reproduce (i.e., prepubescent children, persons of the same gender). So the general question I have is, what does it mean to be “mentally ill”?

Not quite, mental illnesses are diagnosable disorders of the brain. This means they must under stringent empirical study be able to be distinguished by this alone. The whole point is the Hooker study to paraphrase; “blew this out of the water”, none of the world renowned experts could identify any of the participants as homosexual when given the results blindly. These were the best test options of the time, rigorously and empirically performed and the results can not be disputed. In the article Jones is very clear that he respects, agrees and understands what her study showed is true. Homosexuality is not a disease.

Where your thought process makes an illogical or non scientific leap though, is on a presumption that lack of morality is a disease. This is just simply not the case.

This perception can do nothing but harm;

… Paragraph 1 of the article … religious and social conservatives are prone to believe a number of falsehoods. This reality exposes us to derision in the public arena and weakens our capacity to engage this issue effectively.

Put another way why not make all morally objectionable behavior a disease?

What about:

• those who take contraception,
• those who commit adultery,
• those who have sex before marriage,
• those who are unwed, but live together
• those who don’t follow Catholicism(?)

All of these are not behaviors in concert with Catholic morality, however that alone does not make them a disease.

This is the same mistake of the past that a lot of people are making today. Until we accept reality we are not going to make headway using this false belief as a pedestal to educate from. It is flawed,its been tested and reviewed by Christian Psychologists and found to be empirically sound.

…still there is that temption to keep trying to justify this ‘false belief’, like small children when they’re told no for something what do you always hear? …But. But what if… But what about… But isn’t it the same as …

The short answer is no to any ‘but’ any person can come up with!

That was the whole emphasis of the article – the error religous and conservatives make in this topic is a unjustified. The article though is balanced and deals with the falsehoods and errors made in the LGBT community as well.

 

[mpartyka]

Where your thought process makes an illogical or non scientific leap though, is on a presumption that lack of morality is a disease.

Well, no, I’m not trying to call a “lack of morality” a disease because I don’t see homosexual arousal as a moral lapse any more that I see heterosexual arousal as a moral lapse. Sexual arousal is generally involuntary, so if a person finds that he/she is aroused by someone of the same gender, I don’t automatically attribute that arousal to a moral failing because there was not necessarily any conscious choice at work.

However, I would say that the fact that someone is aroused by someone of the same gender constitutes a disorder of some sort, even if it is not a disorder of the mind (i.e., a mental illness). People are not supposed to be sexually attracted to persons of the same gender any more than people are supposed to be attracted to prepubescent children. The deviation from the norm is what I would think constitutes a disorder.

Question: According to the criteria by which the Hooker study disqualified homosexuality as being a mental illness, can pedophilia be similarly disqualified? If not, why not?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

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.

All Quotes from the original article by Standon L Jones “Sexual Orientation and Reason: On the Implications of False Beliefs about Homosexuality”

The author likewise criticized gay and pro-gay activists in advancing false claims or “scientific facts” in forcing society to accept that homosexuality is normal.

…

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

At least this post of yours acknowledged the misgivings of the other side (LGBT community).

The original article by Stanton Jones is very long and covered much ground. Indeed it is interesting, especially the parts where he did not gloss over the errors of the American Psychological Association with its positions and reliance or use of flawed studies. He himself acknowledged the problem of sample representatives, the Achilles heel of research into the homosexual condition. To make general characterizations such as “homosexuals are as emotionally healthy as heterosexuals,” scientists must have sampled representative members of the broader group. Jones excused the issue on sampling because representative samples of homosexual persons are difficult to gather as homosexuality is a statistically uncommon phenomenon. He said as much also in the shortened version of his essay here.

Jones also pointed to the gay advocacy the American Psychological Association has undertaken since the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the DSM by the organization of psychiatrists. I would lift all the parts of the article but it would make for a long post, but here are a few of his own words:

It is an empirical fact that the APA, out of its commitment to gay affirming advocacy, has passed a number of resolutions asserting that homosexuality is a “normal and positive variant of human sexuality.” But how this assertion of value could be established as a matter of “scientific fact” is truly mystifying.

The APA Amicus brief for the Proposition 8 Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is forceful on the issue of change; contrary to claims that change is possible, it says “research suggests the opposite.”[52] The opposite of possible is, of course, impossible.

But the research doesn’t really say that. As my colleague Mark Yarhouse and I[53] have documented, literally dozens of professional publications meeting the scientific standards of the times appeared in journals between the 1940s and into the early 1970s reporting change in homosexual orientation, though difficult, was possible for a substantial portion of those pursuing such change. But rarely since 1980 has a professional publication suggested that change of homosexual orientation is possible.

The internal inconsistency of the 2009 APA Task Force Report was remarkable, in that after dismissing Sexual Orientation Change Efforts for its lack of empirical validation, they then had the chutzpah to warmly recommend gay affirming therapy while explicitly acknowledging that it lacked the very empirical validation required of SOCE.

The brief filed by the APA in the Proposition 8 case stated “that large proportions [of the GLB population] are currently involved in such a [committed] relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years. Recent surveys [citing Herek et al., 2010] based on more representative samples of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals support these findings.” This claim is puzzling in that Herek et al. found that in the case of gay men, 60% were not currently in a relationship at all, and the vast majority of bisexual women and some bisexual men were in a committed relationship with individuals of the opposite sex.

[Con’t]

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

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”

The important message of the article is in the conclusions the author reached, condensed below:

1. 
   *]Increased risk for psychological distress and physical health complications of various sorts associated with being gay or lesbian does not validate construal of homosexuality as a mental illness; further, this increased risk may legitimately be attributed to some degree to abusive or even violent treatment by those who disapprove of their choices; however, we cannot eliminate the possibility that this elevated distress is to some degree or partially an entailment of living life contrary to the normative grain of our gendered sexuality.
   
   *]Sexual orientation is quite dis-analogous to race.
   
   *]Homosexuality is not immutable, but there is little basis to believe that every individual homosexual person can reorient to heterosexuality.
   
   *]While there are homosexual relationship that are equivalent on certain dimensions of health and stability compared to heterosexual relationships, there is no question that homosexual partnerships do not have the intrinsic capacities for reproduction of male-female pairings. The typical homosexual relationship differs in certain ways from the average heterosexual relationship.
   
   *]Although some individuals ground their identity in their sexual orientation, there are insufficient resources within the social sciences to determine the legitimacy of this reality.
   
   *]Our culture is polarized between those relentlessly advancing the full acceptance and normalization of all things homosexual, indeed of all sexual variations, and those resisting those moves in the name of traditional values.
   
   *]We know much more now than we did 10 and 30 years ago about the emotional well-being of homosexual persons, the complicated interaction of nature and nurture in the causation of sexual orientation. The contributions of science to this complicated area, however, remain sketchy, limited and puzzling. It is remarkable how little scientific humility is in evidence given the primitive nature of our knowledge.
   
   *]The best ecclesiastical, professional, legal and social policy will not be founded on falsehoods or on grotesque and indefensible simplifications, but on a clearheaded grasp of reality in all its complexities, as well as on a humble recognition of all that we do not know.
   
   [italics mine]

 

[StevieD]

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.

I am at a loss to understand what your point is. Are you a statistician? Your personal experiences and opinions provide no useful information whatever in this matter. The studies quoted certainly are meaningful to anyone who takes the care to consider them.

 

[StevieD]

PS you interpret “steady relationships” as monogomous, unfortunately in the homosexual community this is rarely the case. I could go on.

 

[DexUK]

I am at a loss to understand what your point is. Are you a statistician? Your personal experiences and opinions provide no useful information whatever in this matter. The studies quoted certainly are meaningful to anyone who takes the care to consider them.

I did indeed take care to consider them and the studies quoted in the link I take issue with can be demolished with very little effort indeed. I have taken very great care to do that with one specific example in clear mathematical terms earlier on in this thread. To take them all, in turn, would occupy a load more space than anyone would bother reading, which is why I only took one major example. I also have a day job to attend to!

The study and processing of statistics and logic has been an intrinsic part of my career thus far and forms part of my formal qualifications as it happens. Any appreciation of the mathematics of the example I gave earlier needs only a basic high school level of math to understand though.

 

[DexUK]

PS you interpret “steady relationships” as monogomous, unfortunately in the homosexual community this is rarely the case. I could go on.

That may or may not be true. However, generalisations such as “all homosexual sexual activity that doesn’t count as ‘safer sex’ will automatically lead to harm” is simply untrue. The reference is clearly in respect of homosexual partners not using condoms therefore the assumption is that they will contract HIV or other illnesses. Since HIV can ONLY be contracted by a person by sexual means if the other person is a carrier of it, logically if neither person is a carrier and neither of them is engaging in non-monogomous behaviour, the likelihood of contacting HIV is precisely nil.

The implicit assumption in that particular ‘study’s’ conclusion is that gay people spread HIV. Well some of them clearly do. But then so do straight people. In fact there are far more straight people with HIV than gay people. And obviously the ‘cure’ such as it is, is to be chaste before marriage and only ever sleep with the person to whom you are married, and naturally the indulgence in fornication amongst heterosexuals AND homosexuals is a bad thing, but the studies quotes present ‘facts’ that are nothing of the sort. And when trying to win a moral argument, it really does help to speak the truth. One can’t make truth from a lie, no matter how hard one tries.

 

[St_Francis]

That may or may not be true. However, generalisations such as “all homosexual sexual activity that doesn’t count as ‘safer sex’ will automatically lead to harm” is simply untrue. The reference is clearly in respect of homosexual partners not using condoms therefore the assumption is that they will contract HIV or other illnesses. Since HIV can ONLY be contracted by a person by sexual means if the other person is a carrier of it, logically if neither person is a carrier and neither of them is engaging in non-monogomous behaviour, the likelihood of contacting HIV is precisely nil.

The implicit assumption in that particular ‘study’s’ conclusion is that gay people spread HIV. Well some of them clearly do. But then so do straight people. In fact there are far more straight people with HIV than gay people. And obviously the ‘cure’ such as it is, is to be chaste before marriage and only ever sleep with the person to whom you are married, and naturally the indulgence in fornication amongst heterosexuals AND homosexuals is a bad thing, but the studies quotes present ‘facts’ that are nothing of the sort. And when trying to win a moral argument, it really does help to speak the truth. One can’t make truth from a lie, no matter how hard one tries.

Have you read the study mentioned? I was unable to find it, but I’m looking on an iPod. As I pointed out before, what was said indicated some action undertaken in the context of a currently-monogamous relationship that was “more unhealthy” than occurred under other circumstances. I assumed this referred to actions unrelated to spreading AIDS or other STDs, actions which are “more unhealthy” for other reasons.

 

[djeter]

I found this very interesting:

While I don’t deny any of the study you are promoting here, you might enjoy Sr. Stanton Jones’ article in this month’s First Things (happily it is also free here.). A teaser:

Many religious and social conservatives believe that homosexuality is a mental illness caused exclusively by psychological or spiritual factors and that all homosexual persons could change their orientation if they simply tried hard enough. This view is widely pilloried (and rightly so) as both wrong on the facts and harmful in effect. But few who attack it are willing to acknowledge that today a wholly different, far more influential, and no less harmful set of falsehoods—each attributed to the findings of “science”—dominates the research literature and political discourse.

We are told that homosexual persons are just as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals, that sexual orientation is biologically determined at birth, that sexual orientation cannot be changed and that the attempt to change it is necessarily harmful, that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual ones in all important characteristics, and that personal identity is properly and legitimately constituted around sexual orientation. These claims are as misguided as the ridiculed beliefs of some social conservatives, as they spring from distorted or incomplete representations of the best findings from the science of same-sex attraction.

Today we approach same-sex attraction with views grounded in social and biological scientific perspectives that are only partially supported by empirical findings…

If you are going to write on these topics you should make yourself familiar with Dr. Jones’ writings.

God bless.

dj

 

[djeter]

The implicit assumption in that particular ‘study’s’ conclusion is that gay people spread HIV. Well some of them clearly do. But then so do straight people. In fact there are far more straight people with HIV than gay people. .

It’s a complex situation as **this 2010 CDC snapshot **reveals; the fact that this small group of homosexual (what the study terms “MSM” Men having sex with men) cause 53 percent of new HIV infections is only part of the complexity. You can’t take anything away from the larger numbers of heterosexual HIV infected population.

An interesting reaction (not mine):

No matter what your moral convictions are on homosexuality,
there is no excuse for the blatant lack of personal
responsibility shown by most. My alternate lifestyle is that
I am a gun nut. I realize that the life style that I love
could be very dangerous to me or others if not conducted
according to strict rules. If I were to stand on the town
square and fire random shots blindfolded I’d be put away for
years and never own a gun again. Many gays want to conduct
their sex lives in the same manner and have us not only
condone it, but pick up the bill.

dj

 

[DexUK]

Interestingly, Pope Benedict has said quite recently, in the case of a homosexual male protecting himself against infection by another, that condom use could be the first step towards good. While he doesn’t out-and-out recommend it, it seems that the Pope’s opinions on the subject are significantly more nuanced than many would believe.

articles.nydailynews.com/2010-11-20/news/27081872_1_condoms-aids-epidemic-sexuality

 

[edwest2]

What Pope Benedict said was extensively commented upon in this forum at an earlier time. It was a step in the right direction, but disordered sex acts by gay and straight people are still disordered.

Here is an excellent article from the Catholic Answers library that deals with the Catholic/Biblical view and the scientific:

catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Peace,
Ed