Is Homosexuality Genetic?

[Arandur]

(Keep in mind, I will not be citing studies, but statements. If the current tone persists, I’ll get on LexisNexis and find over 50 studies which can refute many of the common stereotypes.)

Why statements? They may be summaries of data, but they don’t source data, so they don’t back themselves up with fact as directly as studies do. Statements are also formulated in a different language; while studies try to hold to neutral language, statements aren’t so rigorous, tending to not be as value-neutral.

What “current tone?”

Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.

What are you trying to show with this? What is the definition of “disorder?” In context, the APA seems to be using a clinical definition that is based on frequency of observation. At a certain frequency, they seem to conclude that these behaviors are “normal aspects of human sexuality” and thus, merely by that virtue (and “no inherent association” with a clinical psychopathology), not a “disorder.” Even if it goes beyond this limited definition, it merely gets into the realm of asserting a value judgment with no explanation of how that value judgment was arrived at or why it is valid.

This statement does little for a discussion of moral philosophy that I can see.

Research indicates that many lesbians and gay men want and have committed relationships. *For example, survey data indicate that between 40% and 60% of gay men and between 45% and 80% of lesbians are currently involved in a romantic relationship… *

Whoa, hang on, the second sentence does not follow from the first. The data cited from the survey do not come from a question of preference (the first sentence suggests “want”), but infers it from a statistic of “romantic relationships.” No explanation is made of the leap from “romantic relationships” to “committed relationships.” There’s quite a difference. Particularly in the culture today where the idea of “committed” has been watered down to not mean “life-long” as in “marriage.” In fact, even though I’ve talked with many gay people who advocate gay marriage, very few even among them want anything to do with lifelong marriage. And many gay people say they don’t care a whit about gay marriage because they don’t want it. Yes, this is my anecdotal experience, but it is just an example of how “romantic relationships” can differ in definition from “committed relationships” and that from “life-long marriage.”

Shoddy language used here by the APA if you ask me.

• For instance, one stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians and gay men are dysfunctional and unhappy. However, studies have found same-sex and heterosexual couples to be equivalent to each other on measures of relationship satisfaction and commitment.*

Again, are they talking about a preponderance of studies? Are they talking about studies have shown that it is possible, or that it is just as common? Because in all my research I have not found one study that has not been challenged by quite a variety of non-secular peers that claims that on the whole, across the statistical populations, homosexuals have matched heterosexuals for happiness and health–which can be quite different than “relationship satisfaction and commitment” (the latter criteria sounds like it could be met by two people happy to be in a non-monogamous relationship of casual sex). You yourself have admitted differences in psychological health profiles of the populations.

Again, a very misleading statement, or at best one not qualified well.

…It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.

[/indent]
This qualification presupposes a difference in stability levels as compared to heterosexual couples, otherwise the hypothesis that more support would help improve those numbers makes no sense. Yet how can you claim to disprove the validity of a generalization if the generalization is actually based on a relative difference when compared against heterosexuals that you agree exists?

 

[Arandur]

PART 2
…
I believe what’s more harmful is all the intolerance and discrimination homosexuals face.

A series of value judgment not qualified or defended by moral arguments. I.e, no moral arguments were presented to justify these positions.

The only way the values of one organization are better than another is if they rely on superior moral reasoning, which is inherently highly debatable. You try to discount the ACP by associating it with an agenda, while absolving organizations that agree with you from any agenda or prevalent values systems. Surely you know that many people have little respect for psychology in general, psychotherapy in particular, for various reasons. Whether that position is right or not is a matter of debate. The point is, the issues are up for debate; organizations differ in bias and viewpoint; and asserting the values of one organization or another without presenting a moral argument is worthwhile to the discussion only when done to establish your initial position. It doesn’t further the discussion.

I object to your assertions that:

However, some of their positions lack any sort of reasoning. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that same-sex parenting is harmful. …

There simply is no credible research which suggest that homosexuality is in any way harmful to society.

You take too extreme a view and make too extreme blanket statements here that are obviously exaggerated. There IS reasoning involved, whether you like it or agree with it or not. There IS evidence and there IS credible research, whether you like it, agree with it, or even use the same definitions of “harmful to society” or not. As I’ve expressed before, I find it quite wrong on a number of different counts to dismiss disparage other people’s positions so broadly when it is quite contrary to fact and not accompanied by a counterargument backing up the claim.

You don’t seem to want to use any criteria other than your base values assumptions to address the morality of the issue, so I’m not sure where we can go from here. We’ve addressed the OP (determining that both genetics and development may play a role in homosexuality in various degrees).

Let me just also note again, since you have implied various things about me, that I have not advocated any type of persecution. All I have done is try to discuss the causal factors in homosexual attractions and the morality of homosexual actions. I have not advocated any public policy, and I do not support any public policy of persecution. I believe that homosexuals should not be discriminated against for any reasons not legitimately used to discriminate against anyone else. I do not believe that homosexual behavior should be promoted as a matter of public policy, however.

 

[Neolithic]

Re: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, my information comes from several sources, but I do not recall the specifics right now, just the takeaway I got from them. I’m shakiest on Plato, but I do remember specific words from Socrates (recorded by Plato) and Aristotle speaking on problems with homosexuality and its effects on society. Still, you bring up a point that I shouldn’t mention things like this without my specific sources handy. As of right now, I can only refer back to my sources generally: Agnes Savill’s “Alexander the Great and His Time,” several courses on Philosophy, the ancient world, and Greece in particular from the Teaching Company (www.teach12.com) taught by some of the leading professors of our times; and from Peter Kreeft’s lectures (a Catholic Boston University philosophy professor who is an expert in Socrates, among other things). So I’ll leave this argument at that for now; I’ll accept that you have some reasonable question to the contrary, but please accept also (unless you just want to mistrust me) that I am drawing my information from reasonable sources as well.

If the “leading professors” of our time assumed certain sentiments from said philosophers, then it’s reasonable to assume they would no longer be the “leading professors” of our time; for, I directed you to three dialogs authored by said philosophers (Symposium, Phaedrus, Gorgias) which completely refute your sources. So, how do you explain that?

In addition, I decided to search Peter Kreeft and discovered his Web site. One section, which I will provide a link to, is “featured writing.” I found absolutely nothing on Socrates, Plato, Aristole, or even Ancient Greece. If he was such an expert, you would think there would be at least one article on the social ills of homosexuality as observed by Socrates - but, alas, there is not.

Featured Writing

I will point out something interesting in what you mentioned, though: if Socrates was trying to limit his impulses, does not that show some belief that they were problematic in some way? The other point, about corrupting youth, I think your position on that is quite controversial; I thought even the common belief about that trial was that it was a farce and Socrates was not guilty of anything, and that the corruption had to do more with his teachings than something sexual.

They were problematic for him, because they were impeding his ability to teach philosophy. Nowhere in Plato’s dialogs, or Socrates for that matter, is there any implication that either viewed homosexuality negatively. As I said, the only philosopher who seemed to take issue with homosexuality was Aristotle; however, it was passive homosexuality that he took issue with. For goodness sake, Socrates was executed for menacing adolescents into prostitution!

So, I do mistrust you. I think you were trying to appear overly cultured and stepped on a land mine.

Why should being 2% of the population (they would say much higher) increase promiscuity?

You misunderstood what I said. Read it again:

The reason for this is actually pretty simple: Roughly 2% of the population falls under the category of homosexual, which isn’t very many. So homosexuals tend to flock to known hangouts to quell their sexual appetite.

Think about it, you don’t need someone you could forge a longterm relationship with in order to quell your sexual appetite. Because there are so few, finding the right one is, I imagine, problematic. There is no “right one” when it comes to fulfilling sexual needs.

You brought up Greece before, where homosexuality was much more widely accepted. Now, I don’t know the degree to which fidelity was promoted (I believe it was, particularly for heterosexual relationships), but is there not a lot of evidence of promiscuity among the homosexual relationships then? I’m not sure your link is a strong one.

Heterosexual fidelity wasn’t promoted - it was law. Women were treated as property in Ancient Greece. Anytime a married woman went about town, she was accompanied by a male to ensure fidelity. If she was caught having sexual relations (or, in flagrante delicto) with another man, he would be killed and the woman would be severely punished. Women were transferred from their father to their husband, like an arranged marriage.

Homosexuality was celebrated in Ancient Greece. Like I said, it was considered the “superior love” for a society who frequently engaged in warfare; it was necessary to bravery and valor.

For the third time, I will direct you to Plato’s Symposium to educate yourself. The Ancient Greeks believed that in the beginning there were three versions of double-headed human beings: male-male, female-female, and male-female. Zeus became angry with the humans, it was believed, and he split them all in half. So from then on, each Greek sought out his other half, hence the reason promiscuity was common. It was a religious conviction, not a psychological problem.

You should know that in addition to being a psychologist, I am a very avid reader. I own over 2000 books, and several of them concern Ancient History. So, I would advise you to leave Greek history behind because you’re failing miserably at using it to prove your point.

CONTINUED…

 

[Neolithic]

CONTINUED…

Wait just a minute here. What kind of “anti-gay agenda” am I “promoting?” I’m taking part in a discussion of both the causes of homosexuality and of the moral philosophy about whether certain acts are morally wrong or not. In the course of this discussion I have also talked about many other types of sin, including sins among heterosexuals. I have not talked about any kind of public policy that I can remember. I have linked to arguments on other forums where we were discussing the promotion/legitimization of gay marriage, but even there I was not promoting any kind of persecution, just resisting a public policy change for a whole slew of reasons.

You are promoting an anti-gay agenda. You make statement after statement condemning the homosexual lifestyle, yet you provide no justification for your condemnation. Instead, you link us to another forum in which you discussed this very issue, and the only links I observed were organizations I’ve never heard of, aside from ACPeds. I’m not a member of the other forum - I’m a member of this forum and I’m discussing this issue here. Linking us up to another forum and waxing “Ha-Ha” is not conducive. I’m not about to address those arguments as well as those you provide here. You want me to look at your references, I will. Find something credible and post it here.

What would you cite to support your assertion? In my links, I have cited quite a few studies from different sources that at best link the developmental challenges of children brought up in a homosexual household to being similar to those of children brought up in divorced households. Your assertion is not “simply a fact;” at best, it is quite debatable, challenged by the data. And in case you or anyone else was wondering, the vast majority of the data I chose for the links on that other forum came from entirely secular sources, not even compiled by the Church or any organization attached to it. Much of it was referenced in news articles and government documents.

I’m not aware of any studies you’ve cited. I take the opinion of the APA, the AMA, and American Academy of Pediatrics, the Royal College in the U.K., and the Canadian Psychological Association.

I am at home right now, so I don’t have LexisNexis available to me to search out the proper studies, so instead I will provide you with news articles discussing these studies, as well as a few other things. Monday, when I go back to work, I’ll search them up during my lunch hour.

Here is a Canadian Study:

Parenting by same-sex families is just as good – if not slightly advantageous – for children when compared to heterosexual families, a Justice Department study has concluded.

Commissioned by the then-Liberal federal government in 2003 at the height of the same-sex marriage debate, the academic study was not released until recently when its main author, Professor Paul Hastings at Concordia University, obtained it by making a request using the Access to Information Act. Hastings, with the assistance of research students, reached the study’s conclusion after reviewing existing research relating to the impact on children of being raised in different family types.

Canada.Com

Here is statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which, you realize, is in the business of protecting children:

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

AAP

So, that’s what you can get online. Here is what you can get either online via LexisNexis (which you should have available if you’re a student) or at Archives of General Psychiatry, to which I’ll provide a link.

CONTINUED…

 

[Neolithic]

REFERENCES…

Laumann EO. National Health and Social Life Survey. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago and National Opinion Research Center;1995

Barret RL, Robinson BE. Gay Fathers. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books;1990

Bigner JJ, Bozett FW. Parenting by gay fathers. In: Bozett FW, Sussman MB, eds.Homosexuality and Family Relations. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press;1990 :155 –175

Patterson CJ, Chan RW. Gay fathers and their children. In: Cabaj RP, Stein TS, eds. Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press;1996 :371 –393

Turner PH, Scadden L, Harris MB. Parenting in gay and lesbian families. J Gay Lesbian Psychother.1990; 1 :55 –66

Harris MB, Turner PH. Gay and lesbian parents. J Homosex.1985; 12 :101 –113[Medline]

Bigner JJ, Jacobsen RB. Adult responses to child behavior and attitudes toward fathering: gay and nongay fathers. J Homosex.1992; 23 :99 –112[Medline]

Flaks DK, Ficher I, Masterpasqua F, Joseph G. Lesbians choosing motherhood: a comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Dev Psychol.1995; 31 :105 –114

Green R, Mandel JB, Hotvedt ME, Gray J, Smith L. Lesbian mothers and their children: a comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Arch Sex Behav.1986; 15 :167 –184[CrossRef][Medline]

Golombok S, Tasker F, Murray C. Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: family relationships and the socioemotional development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. J Child Psychol Psychiatry.1997; 38 :783 –791[Medline]

Golombok S, Spencer A, Rutter M. Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. J Child Psychol Psychiatry.1983; 24 :551 –572[Medline]

Kirkpatrick M. Clinical implications of lesbian mother studies. J Homosex.1987; 14 :201 –211[CrossRef][Medline]

Miller J, Jacobsen R, Bigner J. The child’s home environment for lesbian vs heterosexual mothers: a neglected area of research. J Homosex.1981; 7 :49 –56[CrossRef][Medline]

Kirkpatrick M, Smith C, Roy R. Lesbian mothers and their children: a comparative survey. Am J Orthopsychiatry.1981; 51 :545 –551[Medline]

Patterson CJ. Children of lesbian and gay parents. Adv Clin Child Psychol.1997; 19 :235 –282

Patterson CJ. Children of the lesbian baby boom: behavioral adjustment, self-concepts, and sex role identity. In: Greene B, Herek GM, eds. Lesbian and Gay Psychology: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications;1994 :156 –175

Bailey JM, Bobrow D, Wolfe M, Mikach S. Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Dev Psychol.1995; 31 :124 –129[CrossRef]

Gottman JS. Children of gay and lesbian parents. Marriage Fam Rev.1989; 14 :177 –196

Patterson CJ. Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Dev.1992; 63 :1025 –1042[CrossRef][Medline]

Tasker FL, Golombok S. Growing Up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development. New York, NY: Guilford Press;1997

Allen M, Burrell N. Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: meta-analysis of existing research. J Homosex.1996; 32 :19 –35[CrossRef][Medline]

Huggins SL. A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. J Homosex.1989; 18 :123 –135[CrossRef][Medline]

Tasker F, Golombok S. Adults raised as children in lesbian families. Am J Orthopsychiatry.1995; 65 :203 –215[Medline]

Patterson CJ. The family lives of children born to lesbian mothers. In: Patterson CJ, D’Augelli AR, eds. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities in Families: Psychological Perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press;1998 :154 –176

Steckel A. Psychosocial development of children of lesbian mothers. In: Bozett FW, ed. Gay and Lesbian Parents. New York, NY: Praeger;1987 :75 –85

Stacey J, Biblarz TJ. (How) Does the sexual orientation of parents matter? Am Sociol Rev.2001; 66 :159 –183

Tasker F. Children in lesbian-led families: a review. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry.1999; 4 :153 –166

Patterson CJ. Families of the lesbian baby boom: parents’ division of labor and children’s adjustment. Dev Psychol.1995; 31 :115 –123

Chan RW, Brooks RC, Raboy B, Patterson CJ. Division of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parents: associations with children’s adjustment. J Fam Psychol.1998; 12 :402 –419[CrossRef]

Patterson CJ, Hurt S, Mason CD. Families of the lesbian baby boom: children’s contact with grandparents and other adults. Am J Orthopsychiatry.1998; 68 :390 –399[Medline]

Emery RE. Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychol Bull.1982; 92 :310 –330[CrossRef][Medline]

So, that’s what I would cite to back up that assertion. As I said, many can be found HERE or HERE

Now, I’ll respond to your other concerns after while.

 

[Neolithic]

Do you dispute that homosexuality or bisexuality has been on the rise? Not just people coming out of the closet. What about all these “cuddle parties” and other open experimentation among pre-pubescent and adolescent children that we keep hearing about? Is this not influenced at least in part by cultural acceptance and even encouragement? You don’t think that’s learned behavior at all?

Do you not understand why that is? It wasn’t until recently that homosexuality was even partially accepted, so many homosexuals simply lived in anonymity. So, the recent rise can be attributed to the growing acceptance causing in-the-closet homosexuals to come out; the most ridiculous assumption would be believing that acceptance has caused more people to become gay. That line of reasoning is refuted by current psychological understanding of how and why sexual orientation forms. I’ve only been a psychologist for 30 years, but if you’d like, I could explain to you how sexual orientation develops. Would you like me to? Please, let me know.

And I’m not aware of “cuddle parties” being on the rise. I don’t even know what that is.

What is your opinion of bisexuals? Has bisexuality not been on the rise? I have read plenty of anecdotes of people “trying” sex with the same sex and deciding they liked it and thus are at least bisexual. Would you say that these people should identify as homosexuals, and were that way because of early development issues or late development/learned behavior issues?

Again, I would attribute the rise of bisexuality to growing acceptance. People come out of the closet because they feel there is no danger in being openly gay and/or bisexual. That doesn’t mean, however, the high levels of prejudice and non-acceptance takes no toll, because it does. Look at Ancient Greece, no writings from that time comment on mental instability or characteristics that psychologists today would attribute to a psychopathology. That alone, I feel, refutes everything you’ve said.

Don’t people learn to connect an act that causes arousal for whatever reason with sexual pleasure–in the case of acquired fetishes and sexual tastes? As an example of learned behavior, what about porn actors? What about even people who have been the subject of abusive relationships later than early childhood and been affected in their sexual life by that?

Actually, I watched a special on Cinamax not too long ago in which heterosexual porn actors were forced to take Viagra in order to engage in homosexual sex. This indicates that it is not a learned behavior. (And, no, the special was not a pornographic show. It was a special on the lifestyle porn actors live.)

There is a difference between a learned behavior and a developed orientation.

Unless you can deny all of that, I don’t think you can deny that open cultural acceptance of homosexuality as being morally equal to heterosexuality would have some effect on sexual behavior in the culture. The question to moral philosophy, then, would be to consider what effects those might be, and whether they might be good, bad, or neutral. This helps inform whether the act is good, bad, or neutral.

I either denied much of what you said, or illuminated the actual cause for you. If you have even a rudimentary understanding of how sexual orientation develops - which you clearly haven’t even that - then you’ll understand that you’re just grasping at straws trying to link two entirely separate things.

You forgot about statistical rigor and population samples, my friend. You can’t cite individual anecdotes to attempt to effectively disprove an observed trend. In a bit of retaliation, ‘as a psychologist, you should know this.’ I don’t deny at all that there are happy, totally faithful and healthy homosexual couples. The studies don’t rank that percentage very well against heterosexual marriages, however. There could be many reasons for that, but the raw data are there.

I didn’t forget anything. In my last post, I provided over 30 references which prove my point. In those studies, of which there are 30 (I just want to drive that number home), examinations of homosexual relationships are conducted, and the findings influence - quite heavily - the studies conclusion. If homosexual relationships exhibited so many problems, the conclusion those studies reached would be radically different.

Are you disputing the benefits of heterosexual marriage? If so, I’d be interested to see how you can shut down the body of evidence I linked to. It’s only a small sampling of what’s out there.

I’m not disputing the benefits of marriage in general.

No, that is one of the things we are debating in this question of morality. I have asserted this, backed up by data and reasonable logic. You or others can dispute it, but you can’t pretend that there is no data or no reasonable argument that homosexuality could be harmful in various ways.

There is absolutely no credible data - at least not a large body of it. In fact, I’ve disputed it by a large body of credible data. And whose morality are we using here?

CONTINUED…

 

[Neolithic]

CONTINUED…

Again, it seems like you presume malice in me. I believe fornication among heterosexuals is a grave moral sin as well. Am I malicious or harmful to them? That brings up an interesting thought. Back when fornication was a social stigma, was that stigma a bad thing? Did it cause the sorts of things that you say this stigma against homosexuality causes? To a similar degree? If not, then I don’t think you can claim such a strong link between stigma and the ills afflicting homosexuals as a group today.

Well, fortunately we live in a county that was not founded on any religion, so the continual use of “mortal sin” from you indicates that you’re incapable of seeing the other side of the issue. You have formulated an opinion already, and little I say will matter to you.

And, in fact, if you look at when Christianity took hold in the Middle East, an increase in brothels was observed. I actually learned this the other day on the “Naked Archaeologist” on History International. They found the bones of over 100 infants and sought to discover the reason for it. Well, they finally concluded that the bones were found next to an ancient brothel house. The prostitutes would become pregnant, deliver the baby and throw the baby in a ditch and get back to work. It’s rather disgusting and I hope those women are in hell, but it was the stigma Christianity placed on sexuality that caused the increase in brothel and bath houses. Certainly Christianity didn’t cause these women to murder their children, but it did cause an increase in brothel and bath houses.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Maybe what I was saying wasn’t clear. I was responding to your assertion that pedophilia did not occur naturally among animals, and your inference from that that among humans, pedophilia was therefore a learned and morally wrong behavior. I showed that it did occur in nature, so your logical link doesn’t work. Second, if you wanted to derive morality or learned behavior lessons from nature, then I showed that as homosexuality occurs in nature, it is not beneficial, not a good. So the argument from nature, if that’s one of the (name removed by moderator)uts one wants to use to inform morality, is not in favor of homosexuality.

Pedophilia does not occur naturally - at least not as we know it, and neither does necrophilia. The only animal I am aware of that engages in anything that could be construed as pederasty would be Bonobos. But again, full-fledged sexual intercourse is not observed. It’s rubbing and touching of the infants, which could be anything. It’s not necessarily anything sexual.

Necrophilia, on the other hand, has been observed in mallards only. However, it’s not really conscious necrophilia. The only time it has been observed, that I know of, was in a zoo. The animals were both alive and engaging in sexual intercourse and one of the birds died from hitting a building. The male continued doing what he was doing because he was receiving no feedback. When an animal isn’t getting any feedback, he will continue to do what he’s doing until he either receives the feedback (which he couldn’t because she was dead) or until he is too fatigued to continue.

If you could provide some references which wax differently, I’d like to see them.

 

[Neolithic]

Oh, “psychologists” have determined, eh? A bit presumptuous. You’re pretty late on that one. Humans figured it out a long time ago, and the Church recognizes it as well. Yes, many people within the Church placed much more emphasis on the procreative side for a long time, and some still do, but the core teachings have acknowledged the unitive, intimacy role of sex.

Psychologists have determined that, yes. It was presumed by cultures before modern psychology, but it was indeed modern psychology which proved it.

More to the point, why did you feel the need to bring this up? Where do you think I disputed it? I thought I explicitly included it. But procreation is the essential function of the sex organs. Entirely separating this part (procreation) of the essential purpose of sex from the moral equation is erroneous.

No, it’s not erroneous. By this line of reasoning, which of course is Alan Keyessque, sterile individuals should not have sex because they cannot satisfy the essential function of the sex organs. The moral equation is then broken.

I didn’t realize most of the homosexual behavior observed in the wild was so limited, but it makes sense. Thanks for the info. As for the rest, I gave you a few other examples witnessed from videos. Thanks for doing some research on this (I assume you did, since earlier you said you didn’t think pedophilia or necrophilia existed in the wild).

It’s not limited. I just said:

Homosexual behavior is quite common in the wild. Only Bonobos engage in pederasty, but full-fledge sexual interaction is extremely rare. Typically, it’s touching and rubbing…

Pederasty is extremely rare (only possibly observed in Bonobos). I’m going to assume you just misread what I said and aren’t trying to equate homosexual behavior with pederasty, because if you did that, I would ignore any further contributions from you.

 

[Neolithic]

Why statements? They may be summaries of data, but they don’t source data, so they don’t back themselves up with fact as directly as studies do. Statements are also formulated in a different language; while studies try to hold to neutral language, statements aren’t so rigorous, tending to not be as value-neutral.

They didn’t cite any data because they probably didn’t have to. Most people understand that the APA is very reputable, so much, in fact, the AMA cites their opinion all the time. Fortunately for the APA, I cited information for them a few posts back.

What “current tone?”

The anti-gay tone.

The rest on the post I’m replying to has been answered, I feel, by the studies I provided earlier, so there is no need to address it. I’ll move on to your final post now.

A series of value judgment not qualified or defended by moral arguments. I.e, no moral arguments were presented to justify these positions.

The moral arguments are the evidence. You imply that homosexuality is immoral because of the social ills which accompany a homosexual orientation. However, the evidence which I’ve provided proves your assertion utterly false. Hence, the moral argument.

The only way the values of one organization are better than another is if they rely on superior moral reasoning, which is inherently highly debatable. You try to discount the ACP by associating it with an agenda, while absolving organizations that agree with you from any agenda or prevalent values systems. Surely you know that many people have little respect for psychology in general, psychotherapy in particular, for various reasons. Whether that position is right or not is a matter of debate. The point is, the issues are up for debate; organizations differ in bias and viewpoint; and asserting the values of one organization or another without presenting a moral argument is worthwhile to the discussion only when done to establish your initial position. It doesn’t further the discussion.

I discount the ACP because they’re a very tiny organization which adheres to socially conservative positions. The WHO (World Health Organization), the APA, the Royal College, the AAP, the CPA, and almost all universities who’ve studied homosexuality come to a different conclusion, and they back it up with studies (like the ones I provided). ACPeds should also be discounted because they talk about religion on their Web site, which is absurd. Right then and there you know they operate with a motive. What possible motive could secular organizations like the those above have? Liberal bias? Ridiculous.

In fact, I got one for ya which completely refutes that idea: The APA came to the conclusion that abortion causes absolutely no lasting psychological problems. Once the Royal College heard the APAs conclusion, they contacted the APA and said, “That’s not true. We have a body of research which says that abortion does, in fact, cause lasting psychological problems.” So, the APA and the Royal College put their heads together and they are still reviewing the information; a conclusion will likely be reached later this year. I know this because I’m taking part of the study in my area.

And I’m not aware of people having little respect for psychologists. Considering I and my colleagues make roughly $2,500 a day, I’d say you’re conclusion is false. Also, considering the AMA (American Medical Association) relies heavily on the APA when it comes to mental problems, I’d say your conclusion is again proven false.

I think people have little respect for “biology majors” who clearly exhibit a general ignorance of biology and promote an anti-gay agenda, relying on research from organizations operating with a painfully obvious bias. If you want to object to the homosexual lifestyle on the basis of religious convictions, then fine. I have little to say, because I generally agree. However, when you start using science to object to it, falsified science at that, then I’ve got something to say.

And with the exception of NARTH and ACPeds, organizations do not differ on this issue. All major medical organizations agree that homosexuality is not an illness as we understand the term, it is not harmful to society, and that same-sex parenting is in fact just as beneficial as heterosexual parenting.

 

[Arandur]

If the “leading professors” of our time assumed certain sentiments from said philosophers, then it’s reasonable to assume they would no longer be the “leading professors” of our time; for, I directed you to three dialogs authored by said philosophers (Symposium, Phaedrus, Gorgias) which completely refute your sources. So, how do you explain that?

In addition, I decided to search Peter Kreeft and discovered his Web site. One section, which I will provide a link to, is “featured writing.” I found absolutely nothing on Socrates, Plato, Aristole, or even Ancient Greece. If he was such an expert, you would think there would be at least one article on the social ills of homosexuality as observed by Socrates - but, alas, there is not.

Featured Writing

They were problematic for him, because they were impeding his ability to teach philosophy. Nowhere in Plato’s dialogs, or Socrates for that matter, is there any implication that either viewed homosexuality negatively. As I said, the only philosopher who seemed to take issue with homosexuality was Aristotle; however, it was passive homosexuality that he took issue with. For goodness sake, Socrates was executed for menacing adolescents into prostitution!

So, I do mistrust you. I think you were trying to appear overly cultured and stepped on a land mine.

I doubt I will have time to read and respond to everything tonight. I’m not sure I’m even going to bother, since I generally don’t debate with an obstinate person over a forum unless there is an active audience that is also chiming in and is interested.

Aside from that, though, because you continue to insult me, let me correct some of these first errors of yours.

1. You didn’t look far enough on that site about Peter Kreeft. You should have looked at his Books section: peterkreeft.com/books.htm
   You will find:

Socratic Logic — A unique, comprehensive logic lext using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions, and Aristotelian Principles​

Socrates Meets Jesus — History’s greatest questioner confronts the claims of Christ​

Socrates Meets Machiavelli — The father of philosophy cross-examines the author of The Prince​

Socrates Meets Marx — The father of philosophy cross-examines the founder of communism​

Socrates Meets Sartre — T he father of philosophy meets the founder of existentialism​

The Unaborted Socrates — A dramatic debate on the issues surrounding abortion​

What Would Socrates Do? — Audio lectures on the history of moral thoughts​

–Further, might it just enter your mind that sometimes things are brought up in the context of other discussions and topics–such that explorations of Socrates’ thoughts (or any other philosophers’) might crop up in other discussions? Calm down and try being a little more thoughtful and less judgmental.

1. You don’t seem to have bothered checking up on the credentials of the Teaching Company, its selection process, or its professors. Don’t be so quick to judge something you know nothing about. I said nothing about your links because I decided at the time not to take this issue further, since I couldn’t recall specific quotes.
2. Your representation of the accusations against Socrates appears extremely disingenuous. I can’t seem to find any mention of the accusations you are talking about in articles on the web from encyclopedias or more specialist cites, even some citing primary sources. Granted, I haven’t read through all of them in their entirety, but I skimmed and did searches for “homosexual,” “prostitute,” and “prostitution.” I came up with nothing like what you allege. Not even a mention that it’s speculated about. Rather, the accusations seem to be personal, political, or philosophical.

This appears to be the height of dishonesty from you, given the way that you have characterized this idea in terms that imply it is absolute unquestioned truth–and it isn’t even mentioned in discussions of the trial.

I have been honest about what I represent. It appears that you either have not, or you are just guilty of great exaggeration of your position and being quite judgmental before you have investigated a claim or subject reasonably.

So shall I conclude that I mistrust you?

Here are a few sites that might educate you.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates
law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socrates.HTM
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551948/Socrates

You are promoting an anti-gay agenda. You make statement after statement condemning the homosexual lifestyle, yet you provide no justification for your condemnation.

Again, please describe this “anti-gay agenda” of mine.
Again, you don’t seem to understand how to argue or recognize an argument. I have provided plenty of clearly constructed arguments and referenced data. I understand that you don’t agree with them–that’s what we get into with debate–but to claim that I have provided “no justification” is just ridiculous rejection of the obvious and extremely disrespectful.

Why should I continue in any kind of discussion with a person who refuses to acknowledge that any argument or data presented in opposition to his own even exists?

 

[Neolithic]

I’m not sure I’m even going to bother, since I generally don’t debate with an obstinate person over a forum unless there is an active audience that is also chiming in and is interested.

You won’t respond because you’re obviously wrong. I’ve cited over 30 sources, as well as statements from every major medical institution in the world, which refute everything you’ve said. You rely on NARTH and ACPeds, organizations which operate with a clear agenda. So, I’d rather you didn’t respond to me anymore because I’m rather tired arguing with someone who thinks he knows how to argue a point, but clearly doesn’t.

Aside from that, though, because you continue to insult me, let me correct some of these first errors of yours.

I have not insulted you - at all. You do exhibit a general ignorance of biology, yet claim to be a biology major. Why is it I have to explain biological feedback, pedophilia and homosexuality to you? You should know it!

1. You didn’t look far enough on that site about Peter Kreeft. You should have looked at his Books section:

What does that prove? A bunch of books I’ll have to buy in order to discover his opinion on Socrates and Plato? Like I said, why no article? Secondly, if he does say that Socrates and Plato were against homosexuality, then I would simply provide Symposium, authored by Plato, to refute his assertion. Thus, we would find out that he isn’t that big of an expert.

1. You don’t seem to have bothered checking up on the credentials of the Teaching Company, its selection process, or its professors.

I know who the teaching company is, but that doesn’t prove your point. You claim they say one thing about Socrates and Plato, but you don’t prove it. You expect me to order their lessons to find out? Ridiculous.

1. Your representation of the accusations against Socrates appears extremely disingenuous. I can’t seem to find any mention of the accusations you are talking about in articles on the web from encyclopedias or more specialist cites, even some citing primary sources.
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates
   law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socrates.HTM
   britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551948/Socrates

Which is why I’m the only one to provide any references for that which I assert?

Try reading your links before pasting them as proof of anything. From your law.umkc.edu link:

A general amnesty issued in 403 meant that Socrates could not be prosecuted for any of his actions during or before the reign of the Thirty Tyrants. He could only be charged for his actions during the four years preceding his trial in 399 B.C.E. It appears that Socrates, unchastened by the antidemocratic revolts and their aftermaths, resumed his teachings and once again began attracting a similar band of youthful followers. The final straw may well have been an another antidemocratic uprising–this one unsuccessful–in 401. Athens finally had enough of “Socratified” youth.

In Athens, criminal proceedings could be initiated by any citizen. In the case of Socrates, the proceedings began when Meletus, a poet, delivered an oral summons to Socrates in the presence of witnesses. The summons required Socrates to appear before the legal magistrate, or King Archon, in a colonnaded building in central Athens called the Royal Stoa to answer charges of impiety and corrupting the youth. The Archon determined–after listening to Socrates and Meletus (and perhaps the other two accusers, Anytus and Lycon)–that the lawsuit was permissible under Athenian law, set a date for the “preliminary hearing” (anakrisis), and posted a public notice at the Royal Stoa.

The preliminary hearing before the magistrate at the Royal Stoa began with the reading of the written charge by Meletus. Socrates answered the charge. The magistrate questioned both Meletus and Socrates, then gave both the accuser and defendant an opportunity to question each other. Having found merit in the accusation against Socrates, the magistrate drew up formal charges. The document containing the charges against Socrates survived until at least the second century C.E. Diogenes Laertius reports the charges as recorded in the now-lost document:

This indictment and affidavit is sworn by Meletus, the son of Meletus of Pitthos, against Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus of Alopece: Socrates is guilty of refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state, and of introducing new divinities. ** He is also guilty of corrupting the youth. ** The penalty demanded is death.

**They have several testimonies which imply that Socrates was corrupting the youth, like I said. Couple that with what Plato said of Socrates, and a reasonable conclusion can be reached. **

I have provided plenty of clearly constructed arguments and referenced data.

All of which have been refuted.

I understand that you don’t agree with them–that’s what we get into with debate–but to claim that I have provided “no justification” is just ridiculous rejection of the obvious and extremely disrespectful.

You haven’t provided a single stitch of credible evidence. You rely on ACPeds which talks about God constantly on their site. They clearly operate with a bias.

Why should I continue in any kind of discussion with a person who refuses to acknowledge that any argument or data presented in opposition to his own even exists?

Please don’t continue to engage in discussion with me. I’m quite tired of arguing with someone with blinders on. You have been discredited, and I bet any sensible observer of our discussion, whether they agree with me or not, will see it. Goodbye.

 

[Arandur]

You won’t respond because you’re obviously wrong. I’ve cited over 30 sources, as well as statements from every major medical institution in the world, which refute everything you’ve said. You rely on NARTH and ACPeds, organizations which operate with a clear agenda. So, I’d rather you didn’t respond to me anymore because I’m rather tired arguing with someone who thinks he knows how to argue a point, but clearly doesn’t.

You didn’t bother to check my sources and discover that they draw from many more, including U.K. sources like you mentioned. You didn’t bother to listen to me to realize that the marriage debate and the benefits of heterosexual marriage are an important and necessary consideration in most approaches to determining the morality of sexual actions. Thus, why I was directing you to the other forum where I had posted many sources–many of which cite many other sources within them. I didn’t want to just repost all of that and waste space here, but rather thought anyone interested in it would take an honest look. You didn’t bother, instead selecting a couple that came from sources you want to dismiss without addressing the specifics of their data or conclusions.

I point this out to show you where you are either missing things or being dishonest, so that hopefully you will consider it and improve.

I have not insulted you - at all. You do exhibit a general ignorance of biology, yet claim to be a biology major. Why is it I have to explain biological feedback, pedophilia and homosexuality to you? You should know it!

You were talking across me and not listening to my points. I was only refuting your initial statement saying it didn’t happen and drawing conclusions from nature, an argumentative tactic you chose that I used later and you decided was no longer valid when it was used against you. I was thanking you for illustrating that homosexuality didn’t often if at all seem to be complete sex acts in the animal world (“limited”). I referenced personal experience seeing instances of other types of sexual behavior and yes, I explained that it was likely undertaken due to a desire to release sexual urges. You haven’t been paying attention to what I’ve been saying, or I haven’t been saying it clearly enough.

What does that prove? A bunch of books I’ll have to buy in order to discover his opinion on Socrates and Plato? Like I said, why no article? Secondly, if he does say that Socrates and Plato were against homosexuality, then I would simply provide Symposium, authored by Plato, to refute his assertion. Thus, we would find out that he isn’t that big of an expert.

It gives some evidence of all that I claimed it would–that Peter Kreeft is quite well enough acquainted with Socrates to successfully get a publisher to publish quite a few books related to him. If you bothered to check him out more before judging him, you’d find that he teaches courses on the subject and is pretty well respected. Again, pay attention to the limit of my claims.

I know who the teaching company is, but that doesn’t prove your point. You claim they say one thing about Socrates and Plato, but you don’t prove it. You expect me to order their lessons to find out? Ridiculous.

Once again, I only provided that background as evidence that I had indeed acquired some familiarity with the topics from reliable sources. I had dropped the issue earlier–and stated it clearly now for the third time–because I couldn’t recall exact quotes or find the sources quickly. Don’t make more of something than what the person you’re discussing with claims.

Which is why I’m the only one to provide any references for that which I assert?

Try reading your links before pasting them as proof of anything. From your law.umkc.edu link:

Corrupting the youth is all you have to go on? My point was that I have never anywhere seen a linkage between that phrase and menacing into prostitution like you claim. I ask you to provide a source for your assertion. Instead, “corrupting the youth” seems to mean to everyone else something to do with the political, religious, or philosophical things he was teaching them. Huge leap of logic for you when you provide no back up.

 

[Neolithic]

You didn’t bother to check my sources and discover that they draw from many more, including U.K. sources like you mentioned. You didn’t bother to listen to me to realize that the marriage debate and the benefits of heterosexual marriage are an important and necessary consideration in most approaches to determining the morality of sexual actions. Thus, why I was directing you to the other forum where I had posted many sources–many of which cite many other sources within them. I didn’t want to just repost all of that and waste space here, but rather thought anyone interested in it would take an honest look. You didn’t bother, instead selecting a couple that came from sources you want to dismiss without addressing the specifics of their data or conclusions.

If you have credible sources, then post them here. I have posted over 40 thus far, yet you can’t post a single, solitary one. Like I said, I’m a member of this forum, not the other forum. I respond to arguments contributed to this forum only.

There was absolutely no credible source that I saw. It was information taken from NARTH, ACPeds, and organizations I’ve never heard of. Meanwhile, I have produced statements from every major medical institution in the world, as well as 40 independent studies.

I point this out to show you where you are either missing things or being dishonest, so that hopefully you will consider it and improve.

I’m not missing anything, nor am I being dishonest. I have pointed out flaws in one organization, ACPeds, then refuted the other information via 40 different sources. So, again, you have been discredited.

You were talking across me and not listening to my points. I was only refuting your initial statement saying it didn’t happen and drawing conclusions from nature, an argumentative tactic you chose that I used later and you decided was no longer valid when it was used against you. I was thanking you for illustrating that homosexuality didn’t often if at all seem to be complete sex acts in the animal world (“limited”). I referenced personal experience seeing instances of other types of sexual behavior and yes, I explained that it was likely undertaken due to a desire to release sexual urges. You haven’t been paying attention to what I’ve been saying, or I haven’t been saying it clearly enough.

Let me be very clear: Pedophilia is not present in the wild on large scale. In fact, it’s likely not present at all, because what the Bonobos do could be something entirely separate from sexual desire.

Necrophilia? Again - biological feedback.

It gives some evidence of all that I claimed it would–that Peter Kreeft is quite well enough acquainted with Socrates to successfully get a publisher to publish quite a few books related to him. If you bothered to check him out more before judging him, you’d find that he teaches courses on the subject and is pretty well respected. Again, pay attention to the limit of my claims.

O.K., but you’ve not shown where he said that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle viewed homosexuality as harmful. You have not shown that at all, nor can you. Because, like I said, I will simply provide Symposium, authored by Plato, which shows that homosexuality was celebrated, even among said philosophers. In fact, here is Symposium in full: classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html

And here is an article on homosexuality in Ancient Greece, and be sure to follow the links to essays written on Socrates! fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-anc.html#c3

Once again, I only provided that background as evidence that I had indeed acquired some familiarity with the topics from reliable sources. I had dropped the issue earlier–and stated it clearly now for the third time–because I couldn’t recall exact quotes or find the sources quickly. Don’t make more of something than what the person you’re discussing with claims.

You can’t recall them because they don’t exist. You were making them up to add substance to your argument, and you were called on it.

Corrupting the youth is all you have to go on? My point was that I have never anywhere seen a linkage between that phrase and menacing into prostitution like you claim. I ask you to provide a source for your assertion. Instead, “corrupting the youth” seems to mean to everyone else something to do with the political, religious, or philosophical things he was teaching them. Huge leap of logic for you when you provide no back up.

Please read the essays I linked to above. There will be your linkage.

 

[goofyjim]

You can say it is a sin to eat chocolate ice cream but not vanilla. You can’t change one’s preference for the chocolate ice cream. You can only prevent him from eating it.

 

[SFTor]

I don’t believe they are born gay. God is the author of life. If He is against homosexuality why would He create them?

That’s ridiculous. I have several gay friends, and their struggle has been to come out as gays against massive social resistance.

It is innate, no question. Not to mention not uncommon in the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

[buffalo]

That’s ridiculous. I have several gay friends, and their struggle has been to come out as gays against massive social resistance.

It is innate, no question. Not to mention not uncommon in the rest of the animal kingdom.

The animal kingdom is bogus.

We presumably have risen above animal instincts.

It is not innate. But you are welcome to prove otherwise. But in the meantime consider the social, environmental and epigenetic reasons.

 

[SFTor]

The animal kingdom is bogus.

We presumably have risen above animal instincts.

It is not innate. But you are welcome to prove otherwise. But in the meantime consider the social, environmental and epigenetic reasons.

buffalo, we have a fairly stable percentage of homosexuals in the population, around 2–3%. You are telling me that these are misguided individuals?

Wikipedia: Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

Refute it.

 

[Benedict108]

?Why do people always quote wikipedia? I understand it is accessible, but it is not a peer reviewed source or journal type source and is subject to error and has been challenged in the past. I wouldn’t call wikipedia authoritative, as is the case with any wiki. Wikis sometimes post opinion as fact.

isedj.org/isecon/2007/3123/ISECON.2007.Willison.txt

 

[SFTor]

?Why do people always quote wikipedia? I understand it is accessible, but it is not a peer reviewed source or journal type source and is subject to error and has been challenged in the past. I wouldn’t call wikipedia authoritative, as is the case with any wiki. Wikis sometimes post opinion as fact.

isedj.org/isecon/2007/3123/ISECON.2007.Willison.txt

Do you take issue with the particular passage I quoted? Otherwise you are arguing against a straw man, you know.

 

[Neolithic]

?Why do people always quote wikipedia? I understand it is accessible, but it is not a peer reviewed source or journal type source and is subject to error and has been challenged in the past. I wouldn’t call wikipedia authoritative, as is the case with any wiki. Wikis sometimes post opinion as fact.

isedj.org/isecon/2007/3123/ISECON.2007.Willison.txt

If the material you are using in the Wikipedia article is itself cited, then there’s no problem. However, to save further argument on this issue:

National Geographic: Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate

Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter.

Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn’t risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day “the birds and the bees” generally meant only one thing—sex between a male and female.

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York’s Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

Filmmakers recently went in search of homosexual wild animals as part of a National Geographic Ultimate Explorer documentary about the female’s role in the mating game. (The film, Girl Power, will be screened in the U.S this Saturday at 8 p.m. ET, 5 p.m PT on MSNBC TV.)

The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.

“The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing,” says National Geographic Ultimate Explorer correspondent, Mireya Mayor. “You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males.”

Well, perhaps, in a roundabout way, they are seeking males, suggests primatologist Amy Parish.

She argues that female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy which in turn influences breeding success. Parish says, “Taking something that’s nonreproductive, like mounting another female—if it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success.”