Is Homosexuality Biologically Determined?/New Insight into Research

[BobCatholic]

For me, it is not inherited.
I only get convinced when I hear about the genes of it.

Well, we mapped the entire human genome, and for some odd reason did not find a “gay gene”. Looks like that dog didn’t hunt.

The only gay Gene lives with his boyfriend.

 

[essie7777]

Apoligies i’m going to slice your quote a little here to answer:

Well, no, I’m not trying to call a “lack of morality” a disease…Snipped for slicing …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.

Whilst saying it not a lack of maraility your then go on to explain the “disorder” as not fitting with the morality of the Catholic Church. Using the word ‘disorder’ in this context seems as though you are still trying to make it a “medical disease” but your basis is your own personal morality.

Does that make sense? In the Catholic Faith we believe that homosexual acts are morally wrong, that doesn’t make it a disease though. I understand what you are trying to say but the basis of your judgement for this is not scientific so it is not a disease diagnoised and as i say it reads like you are replacing disease with disorder but giving it the same meaning… it does not change the facts though.

re placed from my slicing … 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.

I may be misunderstanding you as you say that arousal in any gender attraction is not immoral, then as above use arousal in homosexulaity to define itself as wrong based on moral justification because is same sex arousal.

It comes across as a little muddles. You’ll have to explain further for it to be clearer.

Comparing pedophilia to homosexulaity is simply inappropriate. The act of pedophilia is against a child, against the law, has no comparision to consenting adult attraction/acts. Sorry i simply dont see a correlation between the two.

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?
Whilst i don’t agree with this comparison at all…i will try and frame an answer for you.

Basically the Hooker study at its most simple, tested participants based on stringent controls and methods assesing behavior, potential pathology, lifestyle etc. These were examined and found to be indistinguishable as the tests of homosexula persons. They could have been the repsonses from a heterosexual. This is a very basic over simplification but the essense of the study.

There have been hundreds of empirical studies on pedophilia which have distinct pathology and diagnosisable behaviors specific to this group of people. In addition a criteria axis in the DSM includes overt acts of a sexual nature against children. This is clear empirical basis for diagnosis, as well as the obvious victims are raped, molested and their choice removed this is illegal as well as psychologically defined as a disease.

I do think that your are comparing apples and cars here there is no correlation between the two areas at all, their pathology, behavior etc. are as distinctly different as that between a heterosexual and a pedohile.

 

[essie7777]

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.

My post was in response to the discussion up to that point of which posters were perpetuating the falsehoods cited so i wasn’t ignoring anything simply following the coversation thread. so i am unsure why you are pointing this out.

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

There’s no ‘at least’ in this point-- it was relevent to the content of the thread when i posted – again i’m not sure of your point here?

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.

I agree, although his prasie and emulation of Hooker is distinct from this general conclusion as he so clearly stated.

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.

I am a little unsure why you are explaining this to me as i haven’t advocated this position and it seems you are explaining why i shouldn’t … if i am misreading this i apologize but its certainly the way it comes across.

He said as much also in the shortened version of his essay here.

I prefer the full article as it cites better and gives the full discussion.

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:

Again i am unsure what the point is here, why do you believe i need this pointed out to me, again i haven’t advocated this position in any way at all?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

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.

That may be in Haiti, but not in the U.S., as this CDC fact sheet shows.

Indeed, it helps to speak the truth. Setting aside the implicit assumption that you read in that particular ‘study’s’ conclusion, the spread of AIDS / HIV did start in the gay population before the spread to heterosexuals, which the CDC predicted in 1983. A pictorial timeline of the HIV/AID pandemic here.

 

[essie7777]

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

Although i am not sure why you are directing these conclusions at my post, i however do notice that in condensing there may be some parts of the quotes from the article which are missing.

While i understand condensing for space this is an important issue and discussion and the fuller picture is critical of all concerned sides in the debate so i don;t think we need to edit them down to the point context is lost. The pink is what i would add that you left out for a fuller picture of the article’s full conclusions.

1. 
   

   *]Public opinion and social policy developments today are being driven by assumptions that cannot stand under rigorous examination. Some of these beliefs are unhelpful simplifications, some simply go beyond what we reliably know, and others are demonstrably false.

   *]The evidence suggesting Increased risk for psychological distress and physical health complications of various sorts is 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.

   *]The etiology of homosexuality is mysterious; on average it certainly involves some biological contributors and it certainly involves some socio-cultural contributors, but how these factors contribute in the formation of individual sexual orientations is mysterious, as is the role of childhood, adolescent, and adult choices made, consciously or unconsciously, that contribute to the solidification of orientation. There is sufficient evidence, however, to know thatSexual 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., and have many reasons to believe that a process of change is demanding and uncertain.(i think this addition completes the sentence)

   *]Just as we know from the research of Evelyn Hooker and others that some homosexual persons are just as psychologically strong and resilient as some heterosexuals, so also we know that some homosexual relationships can be admirable in many ways, and remarkably equivalent on certain important dimensions of health and stability compared to heterosexual relationships. But we also know withoutquestion that homosexual partnerships do not have the intrinsic capacities for reproduction of male-female pairings, and have good reason to believe that the typical homosexual relationship differs in certain ways from the average heterosexual relationship.

   I think this point was condensed to the point that the full meaning was taken out in your summary

   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.
   
   LIST]
   
   CONT NEXT POST
   [italics mine]

 

[essie7777]

…

[LIST 1]

*]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.There are, of course, many bewildered individuals poised between the polarities, uncertain what the issues are but moved by compassion in response to stories of the sufferings of GLB persons but often equally moved – perhaps by deeply rooted instinct, perhaps by nostalgia –by a deep fear of change.

*]As moral and religious traditionalists face this profound polarization, it is important that **we confess our own culpability in creating the mess we are in. **We were complicit, even if ignorantly and passively so, in the cultural embrace of the disease conceptualization of homosexuality.We offloaded responsibility for the articulation of a thoughtful, caring, theologically rich and pastorally sensitive understanding of sexual brokenness onto the disease conceptualization, and thus were unprepared for the vacuum created by its timely demise. We have failed to articulate thoughtful understandings of human sexuality in light of evolving scientific findings and cultural developments. Perhaps most importantly, we failed and continue to fail to engage individuals who embrace homosexual identity with compassion, understanding, and love, and to seek to defend them against unjust discrimination and violence.

*]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., of the complicated, limited, and difficult possibilities of sexual orientation malleability, of the functional and descriptive characteristics manifest in same-sex partnerships and of the contours of the psychological identities of homosexual persons. 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.

*]Perhaps if our culture can recognize the fluid and incomplete nature of our knowledge of the homosexual condition, if we can recognize the limits of reason, **we may be able to create a public space where differing parties agree to disagree and give each other room to live in civility.**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.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

My post was in response to the discussion up to that point of which posters were perpetuating the falsehoods cited so i wasn’t ignoring anything simply following the coversation thread. so i am unsure why you are pointing this out.

There’s no ‘at least’ in this point-- it was relevent to the content of the thread when i posted – again i’m not sure of your point here?

I agree, although his prasie and emulation of Hooker is distinct from this general conclusion as he so clearly stated.

I am a little unsure why you are explaining this to me as i haven’t advocated this position and it seems you are explaining why i shouldn’t … if i am misreading this i apologize but its certainly the way it comes across.

I prefer the full article as it cites better and gives the full discussion.

Again i am unsure what the point is here, why do you believe i need this pointed out to me, again i haven’t advocated this position in any way at all?

I, too, found the essay of Stanford Jones interesting and in fact read the full / expanded article even before you linked it.

The point of view of your first post came across as narrow, focusing on the falsehoods being perpetuated by one side only. Hence, I wanted to make sure that readers of this thread who may not read the whole article as you and I did know that there are other important areas that Jones covered, not only that gays capitalize on ‘scientific truths’ that are likewise falsehoods, but they are able to do so with the assistance of the gay affirming politicized APA.

It seems you have no disagreement with what Jones put in his essay because you did not bring up any. If so, is it not nice that you and I facilitated in bringing to the fore the full message of Jones?

Oh, btw, yes, Jones was full of praise for Hooker. Yet, he acknowledged that, his own words below:

Her homosexual sample was anything but random. She “attempted to secure homosexuals who would be pure for homosexuality; that is, without heterosexual experience,”[4] and she screened out of her homosexual sample individuals who gave evidence of psychological fragility.

Just saying.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Although i am not sure why you are directing these conclusions at my post, i however do notice that in condensing there may be some parts of the quotes from the article which are missing.

While i understand condensing for space this is an important issue and discussion and the fuller picture is critical of all concerned sides in the debate so i don;t think we need to edit them down to the point context is lost. The pink is what i would add that you left out for a fuller picture of the article’s full conclusions.

essie7777:
Swell, followers of the thread can read it twice, from the link and here. No context was lost, however!

 

[maplebug55]

some of hte most brilliant people have been gay.

 

[Elizabeth502]

some of hte most brilliant people have been gay.

And some of the most brilliant people have been heterosexual.
And some of the most creative people have been homosexual.
And some of the most creative people have been heterosexual.

And the conclusion is…?

(Wait, that’s right: there is no conclusion.)
Not to mention, your statement has nothing to do with the title of the thread.

 

[maplebug55]

I thought a lot of the links and comments were most unfair.
I do not equate homosexuals to pedophiles.
I do not equate heterosexuals to pedophiles.
I do not believe homosexuals are mentally ill.

I know of more heterosexuals living together without being married and having kids out of wedlock
and being on their third or fourth husband/wife.

and I am not gay BTW.

 

[essie7777]

I, too, found the essay of Stanford Jones interesting and in fact read the full / expanded article even before you linked it.

The point of view of your first post came across as narrow, focusing on the falsehoods being perpetuated by one side only. Hence, I wanted to make sure that readers of this thread who may not read the whole article as you and I did know that there are other important areas that Jones covered, not only that gays capitalize on ‘scientific truths’ that are likewise falsehoods, but they are able to do so with the assistance of the gay affirming politicized APA.

It wasn’t aiming to be narrow simply respond to what was being said.

It seems you have no disagreement with what Jones put in his essay because you did not bring up any. If so, is it not nice that you and I facilitated in bringing to the fore the full message of Jones?

It’s difficult to find anything to disagree with as he arguements are so well balanced. He is equally critical when need be on all parties involved in the issue, and his comments on Hooker are relatively brave to the audience the article was first published for, as traditionally this is a group who have done all they can to lambast the study and deny its findings.

Overall he makes some really valid points and what i personally found most interesting was his meld of science and faith. Faith doesn’t need science to build a position against homosexulaity … i kind of read it as lets move on to how we can affect change rally call per se.

Oh, btw, yes, Jones was full of praise for Hooker. Yet, he acknowledged that, his own words below:

Absolutely, but when he explained this the reason was very clear.

To include emotional fragility would be the same as sampling heterosexuals with emotional issues and saying they represent the average heterosexual who doesn’t have emotional issues. Obviously this is not the case so to disprove the consensus of the time the sample needed to be weeded per se.

Just saying.
,

 

[Peter57]

Homosexuality is considered as a sexual deviation disease the majority has a psychological or psychatric causes and a very minor causes are of hormonal or genetic causes which are diseases and must be treated as any congenital or acquired disease.

The homosexual is considered as a patient to be evaluated and treated and not considered as a fact to live with them and consider there wright with rules to protect their behaviour.

The community must consider them patients and must provide treatment for their cases not helping them to live in their disease and consider them normal being.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

To include emotional fragility would be the same as sampling heterosexuals with emotional issues and saying they represent the average heterosexual who doesn’t have emotional issues. Obviously this is not the case so to disprove the consensus of the time the sample needed to be weeded per se.

I don’t see or understand how that justifies her sampling or choice of subjects.

The thing is other homosexuality studies that pulled from prison and patient population were criticized for not drawing from the general population. But Hooker does the same, except going to the opposite corner by choosing only healthy happy homosexuals to test, weeding out the troubled and psychologically fragile. And her study became a debate ender, taken as a basis to conclude that homosexuality is no longer classifiable as a mental illness? Jones may like what Hooker did, but her research shared with the other studies he cited with which he finds issues and it has to do with the problem of sample representatives.
,

 

[raaucoin]

So, I have never understood why exactly does it matter to people of faith if Homosexuality/ same sex attraction is caused by “nature or nurture”. Church teaching is pretty clear on the matter.Anyone who finds himself in that situation is required to live a chaste life according to her status as a single person. The Church also states that the cause is unknown. She doesn’t say remain chaste unless a biological factor is found.
If I woke up tomorrow and the headline news was that researchers from the Church as well as mainstream scientific community have absolutely without a doubt determined that there is a genetic or biological cause- and both sides agree. What would I do?

Well, it will be Saturday morning so I’ll wake up, greet the Lord, turn on the coffee pot, feed and walk my dogs, have coffee, continue to dig and prepare my ground for my garden, first Saturday so I might divert a little and head to morning Mass. Then, I’ll do the rest of my yard work, continue playing in the dirt, have lunch, and at some point force my self to start getting things ready for my accountant to prepare my taxes. And then I’ll end my day with the Lord go to sleep wake up and get ready for Sun. Mass and continue as I always have through the rest of Sunday and into Monday to start another week of work.
All the while going through my days as a woman who once lived openly as a Lesbian, but by the grace of God has had the strength to make some very difficult decisions and now lives as a single (chaste) woman.According to the teachings of the Church.(And who is very happy and at peace in doing so I might add).
Nature or Nurture? Who Cares!!!

 

[St_Francis]

…Comparing pedophilia to homosexulaity is simply inappropriate. The act of pedophilia is against a child, against the law, has no comparision to consenting adult attraction/acts. Sorry i simply dont see a correlation between the two…

There have been hundreds of empirical studies on pedophilia which have distinct pathology and diagnosisable behaviors specific to this group of people. In addition a criteria axis in the DSM includes overt acts of a sexual nature against children. This is clear empirical basis for diagnosis, as well as the obvious victims are raped, molested and their choice removed this is illegal as well as psychologically defined as a disease.

This is the crux of the issue: for Catholics, homosexual activity is very wrong, and is separate, or includes more wrong with it, from heterosexual fornication. The inclination is “disordered” in that it is not ordered to the purpose of the act (procreation).

So, already we are at odds with the APA, in that they, against scientific findings (as outlined in the article), put forth that homosexual inclinations are OK.

You keep emphasizing that pedophilia also involves children, and of course that is yet another and horrendous wrong attached to acting out on the inclination. Let me first clarify that I am using pedophilia to refer to an almost or entirely exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, as does the APA.

You say that diagnosed pedophiles exhibit signs of mental illness apart from their attraction. Since I have so often heard of the surprise people have upon hearing that So-and-so is a pedophile (which may have a looser meaning), it strikes me that pedophiles, too, may fall under the description of homosexuals as people who, other than their disordered inclination, do not necessarily show signs of mental illness.

 

[mpartyka]

Using the word ‘disorder’ in this context seems as though you are still trying to make it a “medical disease” but your basis is your own personal morality.

The definition of “disordered” as I understand it is “it doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to.” We know that sexual attraction has a purpose: to find one a mate with complementary biological sexual characteristics for the sake of creating new human life. Both homosexuals and pedophiles, then, are aroused by persons to whom they biologically ought not to be attracted – neither children nor persons of the same sex are biologically appropriate objects for sexual desire, as they both lack complementary biological sexual characteristics for the sake of creating new human life – therefore the sexualities of homosexuals and pedophiles do not work the way they are supposed to, hence their sexualities are disordered. To say otherwise is to suggest that there is some sort of biological purpose served by a person’s sexual attraction to a child or to a person of the same sex, when clearly there is not.

The act of pedophilia is against a child, against the law, has no comparision to consenting adult attraction/acts…There have been hundreds of empirical studies on pedophilia which have distinct pathology and diagnosisable behaviors specific to this group of people. In addition a criteria axis in the DSM includes overt acts of a sexual nature against children. This is clear empirical basis for diagnosis, as well as the obvious victims are raped, molested and their choice removed this is illegal as well as psychologically defined as a disease.

See, what I hear you saying is that a pedophile’s desire to have sex with a child is not something intrinsically disordered – i.e., it is only because such an act would be damaging to the child that pedophilia constitutes a mental illness or sexual disorder, but the desire itself is a legitimate and normal biological expression of human sexuality.

 

[edwest2]

I thought a lot of the links and comments were most unfair.
I do not equate homosexuals to pedophiles.
I do not equate heterosexuals to pedophiles.
I do not believe homosexuals are mentally ill.

I know of more heterosexuals living together without being married and having kids out of wedlock
and being on their third or fourth husband/wife.

and I am not gay BTW.

Your comment about heterosexuals living together has no bearing on the topic.

Peace,
Ed

 

[St_Francis]

So, I have never understood why exactly does it matter to people of faith if Homosexuality/ same sex attraction is caused by “nature or nurture”.

The reason that people care whether it’s nature or nuture or even choice is that activist homosexuals are trying to equate themselves with African-Americans in terms of discrimination, etc. In the US (where I assume you are but a lot of readers aren’t), there used to be laws against marriage between blacks and whites, and homosexual activists want to equate those laws with laws against same-sex “marriage.”

If the cause is genetic or pre-natal, then homosexuals were born that way and therefore should be permitted to “marry,” according to activists.

It matters to Catholics only insofar as they are interested in truth–their understanding of the situation of the homosexual’s situation would remain the same

 

[edwest2]

The definition of “disordered” as I understand it is “it doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to.” We know that sexual attraction has a purpose: to find one a mate with complementary biological sexual characteristics for the sake of creating new human life. Both homosexuals and pedophiles, then, are aroused by persons to whom they biologically ought not to be attracted – neither children nor persons of the same sex are biologically appropriate objects for sexual desire, as they both lack complementary biological sexual characteristics for the sake of creating new human life – therefore the sexualities of homosexuals and pedophiles do not work the way they are supposed to, hence their sexualities are disordered. To say otherwise is to suggest that there is some sort of biological purpose served by a person’s sexual attraction to a child or to a person of the same sex, when clearly there is not.

See, what I hear you saying is that a pedophile’s desire to have sex with a child is not something intrinsically disordered – i.e., it is only because such an act would be damaging to the child that pedophilia constitutes a mental illness or sexual disorder, but the desire itself is a legitimate and normal biological expression of human sexuality.

Can you supply a scientific paper that supports your last paragraph?

Here is how the American Psychiatric Association defines Pedophilia:

dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=186

Peace,
Ed