Researcher apologizes for study of gay therapy

[Ridgerunner]

That’s just speculation. ** Well wait a minute now. Studies have shown that exposure to pornography can induce changes in the brain, and in an addictive way. So, if addiction to one form of sexual perversion can do it, is there any good reason to deny it in the case of homosexuality? And, of course, a previous poster wanted us all to know that there are brain changes in homosexuals. My question was, and is, whether the brain architecture mandates homosexuality or whether the experience of homosexuality alters the brain architecture. Certainly, that’s something that is so obvious a subject for legitimate study (after all, it was so regarded with porn) that it ought to be studied. But given the pressures on the psych and neuropsych communities now, there is almost no possibility that it will be done. And that’s a shame, because if flooding the public venue with homosexuality is as likely to lead to addiction in some the way pornography (or drugs) does, then the current romanticization of homosexuality is doing young people a serious, serious injustice, and all for the sake of “political correctness”. **

If there are any published, scientific, and peer reviewed studies that show that homosexuals begin sexual activity earlier in life, I’d be interested in knowing what those studies are. The John Jay study. It’s actually about a lot more than just homosexual priest molestations.

No it has not. There are many studies that show that there is no reason to conclude that homosexuals are more likely to have sexual contact those who are underage. ** But that isn’t the question, is it? I never said that homosexuals have more sexual contact with underage people than do heterosexuals. Possibly the majority of heterosexual have sexual contact with underage persons of the opposite sex too. I don’t know. That wasn’t in the study as far as I know. I do doubt it, however.**

It is also noteworthy that the sex of the victim of child sexual abuse is not necessarily indicative of whether the abuser is gay, bisexual, or straight. In other words, a man who molests a boy may be gay, but he may also be straight, bisexual, or none of the above (meaning, not attracted to adults at all).

I realize that’s the politically correct thing to say, and in individual cases that might be factually correct as well. There are those who hold that child abuse is not gender-specific. Of course, the priest scandal molesters’ victims were overwhelmingly young men, not children. Are you really saying you believe a heterosexual man is just as likely to want sex with a teenage boy as a homosexual male is? That really seems to strain credulity past even what political correctness would ask of it.

 

[Biblepoe]

Well wait a minute now. Studies have shown that exposure to pornography can induce changes in the brain, and in an addictive way. So, if addiction to one form of sexual perversion can do it, is there any good reason to deny it in the case of homosexuality?

I’m not denying that pornography changes the brain (everything enjoyable and/or addictive changes the brain) I’m saying that it’s just baseless speculation to say that one becomes homosexual because of some addiction. I’m sure you would agree that people who are heterosexual are not heterosexual due to an addiction.

And, of course, a previous poster wanted us all to know that there are brain changes in homosexuals.

I believe he was talking about differences, not changes.

My question was, and is, whether the brain architecture mandates homosexuality or whether the experience of homosexuality alters the brain architecture.

You were doing more than that. You were saying that the development of homosexuality may be akin to the development of a drug addiction.

Regarding what causes one’s sexual orientation, research is ongoing. Although we do not have a comprehensive understanding of the subject, there is strong evidence that genetics, hormones, and other biological factors play a huge role in determining what one’s sexual orientation is.

Biblepoe;9340856:

If there are any published, scientific, and peer reviewed studies that show that homosexuals begin sexual activity earlier in life, I’d be interested in knowing what those studies are.

The John Jay study.

The John Jay study, as far as I know, is about allegations and convictions against priests for child molestation. It says nothing about homosexuals at all (as far as I know).

I never said that homosexuals have more sexual contact with underage people than do heterosexuals.

You strongly implied it when you said:

“It has also been established that most homosexuals have had sexual contact with underage members of their gender.”

Otherwise, why would you say that?

Of course, the priest scandal molesters’ victims were overwhelmingly young men, not children. Are you really saying you believe a heterosexual man is just as likely to want sex with a teenage boy as a homosexual male is?

Just because he isn’t homosexual doesn’t mean he’s heterosexual. Like I said before, a person who abuses minors may not be attracted to adults at all. In fact, the abusers who tend to abuse the most children abuse children of both sexes. For many abusers, the gender of the minor who is abused may be more determined by which gender the abuser has access to and can get away with. Regarding past abuse, do you think a priest would have more access to males or females? Do you think parents would be more on guard with protecting their male or female children from abusers? If you answer these questions, I think you’ll find that there are good explanations for why most of the victims were male other than, “The priest must be gay”.

Also, a lot of abuse has little to do with sex, and more of an unhealthy need to dominate.

Studies that have looked into the issue have not found that homosexuals are more likely to have sex with those who are underage. If you find a study to the contrary (and from what I can tell, the John Jay Report says nothing about whether or not the abuser was gay, bisexual, or straight) that would make for an interesting discussion.

 

[Hat4]

It seems like there is a lot of study on male homosexuality but I haven’t seen anything on women. Women seem more prone to be “bi” but I wonder how many are really gay? I’ve seen men and women both go from one to the other but it seems like it’s usually women. Is it possible that bisexuality is much more common than homosexuality? I only ask because if I had a dollar for every time a lesbian tried to date me or sleep with me in college I think I’d retire now.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not denying that pornography changes the brain (everything enjoyable and/or addictive changes the brain) I’m saying that it’s just baseless speculation to say that one becomes homosexual because of some addiction. I’m sure you would agree that people who are heterosexual are not heterosexual due to an addiction. **I would not argue that heterosexuals are such due to an addiction, but some of them are addicted to particular forms of perverse sex. It’s not a stretch to say that much of our sexual attraction is due to “imprinting” by an experience perceived as pleasurable. I don’t think anyone quarrels that fetishism is like that. So, if some child is introduced to homosexuality in a way that’s experienced as “pleasureable”, however, perverse, there is an obvious hazard that the child may become “imprinted” toward that orientation. That humans can be twisted by experience is obvious. **

I believe he was talking about differences, not changes. Even music can change our brain functioning. My question was, and is, whether the “differences” can reliably be considered “innate” or whether they are the result of changes, just as brain changes due to pornography are. When studying adult homosexuals, you’re studying people who have engaged in homosexuality or have, for some time, regarded themselves as homosexuals. What all of this “brain difference” argument lacks is a cause-effect relationship. Those who romanticize homosexuality think of it as innate, not as an effect. But nobody can say that homosexual brain differences are not acquired, just as brain differences among drug addicts are acquired.

You were doing more than that. You were saying that the development of homosexuality may be akin to the development of a drug addiction. ** If I was unclear on that, then let me clarify. When, as with fetishism or porn addiction, one’s sexuality becomes perverted, one cannot deny that exposure of a particular kind and at a particular time is not the cause of it.**

Regarding what causes one’s sexual orientation, research is ongoing. Although we do not have a comprehensive understanding of the subject, there is strong evidence that genetics, hormones, and other biological factors play a huge role in determining what one’s sexual orientation is. **Unfortunately, the only research that can get funding is research that is acceptable to homosexual practice. And, no, there is no credible evidence that there is a “gay gene”. There was an attempt, but it was discredited. As to hormones, and “other biological factors”, there is no particular reason to believe that any such differences are innate and not acquired. **

The John Jay study, as far as I know, is about allegations and convictions against priests for child molestation. It says nothing about homosexuals at all (as far as I know). But it does.

You strongly implied it when you said:

"It has also been established that most homosexuals have had sexual contact with underage members of their gender."And so they have.

Just because he isn’t homosexual doesn’t mean he’s heterosexual. Like I said before, a person who abuses minors may not be attracted to adults at all. In fact, the abusers who tend to abuse the most children abuse children of both sexes. For many abusers, the gender of the minor who is abused may be more determined by which gender the abuser has access to and can get away with. Regarding past abuse, do you think a priest would have more access to males or females? Do you think parents would be more on guard with protecting their male or female children from abusers? If you answer these questions, I think you’ll find that there are good explanations for why most of the victims were male other than, “The priest must be gay”. **I think you’re dodging the fact that most of the abused persons were not children at all, but young men. True pedophilia was not significant in numbers of victims. What I was saying is that it’s ridiculous to suggest that those wanting sexual contact with teenage boys are just as likely to be heterosexual as homosexual. **

Also, a lot of abuse has little to do with sex, and more of an unhealthy need to dominate.
Again, you’re talking about pedophilia. Parenthetically, it may be observed that the psych community doesn’t have a very good understanding of pedophilia. Had it been the case, the various attempts of the psych community to “cure” it would not have occurred.

Studies that have looked into the issue have not found that homosexuals are more likely to have sex with those who are underage. If you find a study to the contrary (and from what I can tell, the John Jay Report says nothing about whether or not the abuser was gay, bisexual, or straight) that would make for an interesting discussion.

**One more time. I never said that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to have sex with minors. After all, most heterosexual boys have some kind of sexual contact with females while both are minors. What I did say is that most homosexuals have had sexual contact with minors. Now, the question again, in the “chicken or egg” inquiry, is whether homosexuals’ early encounters with homosexuality are an effect or a cause. **

 

[Ridgerunner]

It seems like there is a lot of study on male homosexuality but I haven’t seen anything on women. Women seem more prone to be “bi” but I wonder how many are really gay? I’ve seen men and women both go from one to the other but it seems like it’s usually women. Is it possible that bisexuality is much more common than homosexuality? I only ask because if I had a dollar for every time a lesbian tried to date me or sleep with me in college I think I’d retire now.

That’s a good question. There are differences between male and female homosexuals, extreme promiscuity being one of them. The two things might not have the same cause at all.

 

[ringil]

I hope his admission leads to some of those awful “gay conversion” camps closing down!!!

I just wish these non-licensed “therapists” would quit harming their clients with this faulty and harmful paradigm.

Sound Catholic practice is to help Gay folks lead chaste lives, not to “change” their sexuality.

I am a therapist and have never met any professional doing this garbage but if I did, and if they were licensed, I would report them in a second for unethical behavior.

 

[Hat4]

How they feel (most of them, at least, the ones I know) is that they were born with different feelings and sensibilities than a heterosexual–they remember feeling gay as early as their first memories–and that is the true them and it is unchangeable and they just want to live their lives as their true selves.

I’ve heard this before but I don’t understand it. When I was young I really didn’t care. I didn’t sit around at 8 years old thinking how attracted I am to women. Why do you think that homosexuals seem to have these early attractions to the same sex when most heterosexuals don’t care until later?

 

[exnihilo]

Attraction can be verified without relying on self reporting. Mental hospitals have ways of telling whether someone who has served time in jail for child molestation is attracted or still attracted to children without relying on self-reporting.

I’m sorry but that is just not true if we are talking about the mental activity that is attraction. One can possibly observe physical changes, in the brain or elsewhere, that suggest attraction but attraction is an immaterial thing. It could never be observed in any way. You simply can not look into someone’s brain and see attraction. Attraction is always learned about by self-reporting.

… Don’t pay attention to your feelings you have for the opposite sex–we must change that." You would feel like the therapy presented to you is trying to go against all true fiber of your feelings and being.

That might be so but that does not make it wrong. If someone had the strong urge to kill we would be wise to try to take away that urge. Taking away that urge could also feel to that person experiencing it that it is taking away their essential nature.

They don’t consider the idea of this therapy “reparative” at all…because they don’t see or feel there is anything to repair! How they feel (most of them, at least, the ones I know) is that they were born with different feelings and sensibilities than a heterosexual–they remember feeling gay as early as their first memories–and that is the true them and it is unchangeable and they just want to live their lives as their true selves.

It wouldn’t occur to any of them to feel bad or uncomfortable about how they feel, if not for being told by some people that it is wrong and a “disordered” and it could send them to hell, etc.

Unless we believe that all feelings are valid and should be acted upon, which I’m sure no rational person would agree to, then that is irrelevant. Some feelings are good and some are bad. It is not surprising to find a person having a feeling thinking that feeling is good, especially in an age where people are encouraged to embrace and celebrate their feelings. If all feelings are equally good then that would destroy the whole practice of psychology which uses its authority to proclaim homosexual attraction is not disordered.

I’ve heard this before but I don’t understand it. When I was young I really didn’t care. I didn’t sit around at 8 years old thinking how attracted I am to women. Why do you think that homosexuals seem to have these early attractions to the same sex when most heterosexuals don’t care until later?

Excellent point. I wasn’t aware of attractions at all until I guess my early or pre-teen years. I think it is ridiculous to think an eight year old can know they are a homosexual.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I just wish these non-licensed “therapists” would quit harming their clients with this faulty and harmful paradigm.

Sound Catholic practice is to help Gay folks lead chaste lives,

That part I like. I can understand how that fits into the 6th Commandment, and parts of the catechism.

not to “change” their sexuality

.

Is there something in the Catechism or Scriptures that would forbid that?

I am a therapist and have never met any professional doing this garbage but if I did, and if they were licensed, I would report them in a second for unethical behavior.

So if a person suffering from SSA willed that they could be freed from that disorder, and a licensed professional was treating them, you would force that person with SSA against their will? You would prevent them from the treatment they desired? And you would consider your action to be ethical?

 

[Skeptic92]

And I think one can make these assertions WITHOUT implying that one has any kind of fear of homosexuals, or any desire to make their lives less pleasant.

I’ve had friends with eating disorders: saying they had such disorders did not carry with it animosity.

I just wanted to pick up this post because it struck a heart string, my ex-fiance had Anorexia Nervosa a truly terrible eating disorder (she has since had a ‘full recovery’ may Thanks be to God) . Now imagine we had the culture we have now with homosexuality but instead with eating disorders, because any Psychiatrist/Psychologist that tries to do a reasonable balanced study into the issue is villified, harassed, threatend and attacked I would of had to watch my ex kill herself because I would be labelled a ‘bigot’ just for saying there is something not right (which lets be honest with everyone, homosexuality is deviant from the norm, and therefore it is a disorder just as is Anorexia).

Why is the homosexual parts of our society (less then 5%, with less then 1% actually being the militant ‘in-your’face’ Christian hating that tend to make the news + the Courts) so afraid of an honest balanced study into the issue? That they might be told something they don’t like?

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Why

Because the difference between anorexia and homosexuality is that anorexia is not anywhere nearly as damaging a disorder to our society, and to the immortal soul.

 

[exnihilo]

I honestly can’t fathom how you can possibly place same sex attraction side-by-side with murder.
One is killing someone; the other is wanting to love someone.
One is a horrible crime, perhaps a mental illness, that is universally accepted as wrong; the other is accepted by many people as normal, healthy, and natural.
If you try to take away someone’s urge to kill another, you are protecting other people’s lives.
Someone who wants to love another person of the same gender does not interfere with your life and how you live it.

I’ve not really compared the two. I’ve simply pointed out the silliness of following the idea of accepting any thought as good. Which sin is the greatest is ultimately up to God. But from Scripture it sure seems that murder and homosexuality are both terrible sins.

If acceptance is your criteria for morality then nothing is actually moral or immoral. There are just passing fads for standards of behavior.

It’s ridiculous that you would say a feeling someone else said they had or is having is ridiculous. Just because you yourself did not feel it, it doesn’t mean someone else is/did not. I suggest you ask all of your gay friends at what point in their lives did they know they were gay, and get back to us on that, please, and tell us what they say. I’ll bet you will find someone who says it’s something they always knew.

I disagree. But we need to be clear so you’ll understand why. I doubt any eight year old that has not been inappropriately sexualized can know that they are everything that an adult practitioner of homosexuality claims to be by nature. What I mean is that I, and am sure most eight year olds, had no idea what sex really was. We also did not understand marriage. We did not understand dating. The immature feelings we had as children were nothing like what the adult homosexual claims to be experiencing.

There are many things a person can have an attraction to as an adult that they knew nothing of or did not understand as a child. A young child does not understand what beer is until they have had it. Beer is not something we have natural knowledge of. The only way a person can know whether they have a taste for beer is by actually having it. Prior to the discovery of beer did people have a taste for beer? Regardless of the answer one thing we do know is that prior to that discover they did not know that they had a taste for beer.

Would a child raised only to know the existence of people of the same sex be able to know their ‘sexual orientation’ as currently proclaimed? Of course not. Not knowing about any other sex there would be no way to claim to be attracted to this non existent thing.

The claim to have had a certain attraction at an early age is ridiculous. There is, or should be, a lack of knowledge. I dont doubt some people have certain feelings. But to attribute those feelings to being indications of a natural appetite are unwarranted. One can read into history knowledge from the future.

 

[Biblepoe]

I would appreciate it if you used the quote function properly when quoting me.

My question was, and is, whether the “differences” can reliably be considered “innate” or whether they are the result of changes, just as brain changes due to pornography are.

Why there is evidence that pornography (like many enjoyable activities) changes the brain, and we do know that those who are already gay men will like to see porn involving men (and straight men porn involving women, etc.), there is not any evidence that the type of porn consumed will cause one to be gay, bi, or straight.

What all of this “brain difference” argument lacks is a cause-effect relationship.

We do not have a comprehensive understanding of homosexuality, but there is strong evidence for genetic and non-genetic biological relations with homosexuality. Research is ongoing to better understand the nature of these relationship. However, there is not any credible evidence that one’s sexual orientation may be successfully directed prior to puberty or later changed.

When, as with fetishism or porn addiction, one’s sexuality becomes perverted, one cannot deny that exposure of a particular kind and at a particular time is not the cause of it.

It is true that if someone is already attracted by a fetish, the interest in that fetish may grow with exposure (for example, research has shown that those who are inclined to rape will be more likely to rape if they consume that kind of porn), but there’s no evidence that one would be attracted to something due to exposure if s/he was never attracted by it.

Unfortunately, the only research that can get funding is research that is acceptable to homosexual practice.

So, you are positing that there is some sort of conspiracy to not fund research for ideological reasons?

And, no, there is no credible evidence that there is a “gay gene”.

I didn’t say there was. I don’t think there is any “gay gene” any more than I think there is a “straight gene.” Things like inborn personality traits aren’t caused by a single gene anyway. Inborn traits such as personality traits are generally influenced by a ton of genes and by many hormones during prenatal development (where most research is being done now with homosexuality). It doesn’t need to be attributable to a particular gene or to genetics at all to be innate.

But it does.

I haven’t found anything in the John Jay Report that mentions homosexuality or suggests anything about homosexuality. If you disagree, then explain what in the JJR mentions or suggests anything about homosexuality so we can discuss its relevance.

And so they have.

Please reference some study that backs up the incredible claim you made that:

“It has also been established that most homosexuals have had sexual contact with underage members of their gender.”

I think you’re dodging the fact that most of the abused persons were not children at all, but young men.

From wikipedia: “In the United States, the abuse was primarily sexual in nature and involved mostly boys between the ages of 11 and 17.” We are still dealing with hebophilia and ephebophilia, which, for the sake of this discussion, are similar enough to full-blown pedophilia. Just like with pedophilia, there can be offenders against adolescents who don’t have an adult sexual orientation (straight, bi, or gay), or do have an adult sexual orientation but the gender of the victim isn’t necessarily indicative of whether they are straight, bi, or gay.

What I was saying is that it’s ridiculous to suggest that those wanting sexual contact with teenage boys are just as likely to be heterosexual as homosexual.

It may seem counter-intuitive to you, but studies have shown that homosexuals are no more likely to abuse minors. Would you care to actually look at them instead of just going off what seems intuitive to you?

Again, you’re talking about pedophilia.

I’m not just talking about pedophilia when I say, “A lot of abuse has little to do with sex, and more of an unhealthy need to dominate.” There are cases where that even applies to adults.

Parenthetically, it may be observed that the psych community doesn’t have a very good understanding of pedophilia.

Did you think that maybe the PhDs who have dedicated their life to studying this have a better understanding than you do of pedophilia/hebophilia/ephebophilia as well as what motivates an abuser?

One more time. I never said that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to have sex with minors. After all, most heterosexual boys have some kind of sexual contact with females while both are minors. What I did say is that most homosexuals have had sexual contact with minors.

But when you brought it up, you weren’t saying that most minors have sex with other minors, you were saying that most homosexual have had sex with minors in the context of speculating that homosexuality (without saying the same for heterosexuality) may develop in a way akin to crack addiction:

And [homosexuality] might be just as intractable as, say, crack addiction, but just as avoidable.

Would you say the same thing about heterosexuality?

 

[Biblepoe]

I’m sorry but that is just not true if we are talking about the mental activity that is attraction. One can possibly observe physical changes, in the brain or elsewhere, that suggest attraction but attraction is an immaterial thing. It could never be observed in any way. You simply can not look into someone’s brain and see attraction. Attraction is always learned about by self-reporting.

No, it isn’t. Attractions manifest in certain observable ways. Mental health hospitals have developed accurate ways to determine if one has a certain sexual attraction. They use it all the time to determine if someone who has served time for raping a child is safe to release. Are you just going to deny that this can be satisfactorily determined via observation?

 

[Skeptic92]

May I ask…why do you say they are afraid?
Have a bunch of gay groups protested against a study of this or something?

If my memory serves, I read in newspapers and magazines all the time about reports given and studies done by therapists, etc…

They all begin with the assumption ‘homosexuality is both natural and normal, instead of dealing with SSA a person must embrace it’ any study that does not have this in the assumption will not be published in a respected Journal (and therefore most academics will disregard it). If you can’t publish it in a respected Journal or a respected Publisher (e’g Cambridge University Press) you can’t put food on the table, they are afraid because they are likely to lose A LOT of money (if they can find funding in the first place) and be vilified by their colleagues and the hostile homosexual political lobbyists or whatever you want to call them.

But why…just because it is not the majority…are you labeling it “deviant”?
Red hair is rare, but we don’t say it’s “deviant”.

Homosexuality is ‘deviant’ from biological norms as it serves NO purpose in the natural world, think about it, if today the whole race turned homosexual, the species will become extinct within 120 years. Our reproductive organs are what for one thing in nature and that is reproduction, the goal of sex within nature is the continuation of the species not pleasure (pleasure being a bonus not the aim), homosexuality therefore deviates from this Biological norm, and as it serves for no benefit (in fact it hurts the species as there is no reproduction in homosexual relationships) to the species is deviant and disordered (same as other psychological disorders e.g Schizophrenia which can be biological, environmental etc).

Red hair is not ‘deviant’ in the same sense, but yes if you wish to strictly define ‘deviant’ as ‘deviates from the norm’ then yes Red Hair is deviant, however it is not truly deviant as it brings about no added benefits or disadvantages.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

They all begin with the assumption ‘homosexuality is both natural and normal, instead of dealing with SSA a person must embrace it’ any study that does not have this in the assumption will not be published in a respected Journal (and therefore most academics will disregard it). If you can’t publish it in a respected Journal or a respected Publisher (e’g Cambridge University Press) you can’t put food on the table, they are afraid because they are likely to lose A LOT of money (if they can find funding in the first place) and be vilified by their colleagues and the hostile homosexual political lobbyists or whatever you want to call them.

That reveals some ignorance about how science is funded, and what conclusions scientists make. People raise the same argument with respect to climate science and it is just as vacuous there. Moreover, I must ask why there do not exist any other large institutions that have decided to study the matter in a scientific manner. Why, for example, does the Catholic Church itself not commission a large scale study that would definitively answer these questions? I will tell you. Because if they do conduct their study, and their study reveals that their warnings about the dangers of homosexual parenting were dead wrong, then it calls into question their ability to distinguish between a religious danger and a real world danger. In other words, they would have failed at deducing a real world phenomenon from a philosophical/theological position. That means either they are not good at deduction, or their philosophical/theological starting point was incorrect. Religious organizations find that such a failure would be too costly and therefore do not study the matter scientifically. Or, if they do study it, they study it with methodology that bares only a cursory resemblance to science, e.g. the work done by the Family Research Institute.

Homosexuality is ‘deviant’ from biological norms as it serves NO purpose in the natural world, think about it, if today the whole race turned homosexual, the species will become extinct within 120 years. Our reproductive organs are what for one thing in nature and that is reproduction, the goal of sex within nature is the continuation of the species not pleasure (pleasure being a bonus not the aim), homosexuality therefore deviates from this Biological norm, and as it serves for no benefit (in fact it hurts the species as there is no reproduction in homosexual relationships) to the species is deviant and disordered (same as other psychological disorders e.g Schizophrenia which can be biological, environmental etc).

Did you research this position at all? There have been several clues discovered through science. Homosexuality is caused by some variations in genes in the X chromosome. In women, these same variations confer big reproductive advantages, e.g. increased fertility. Moreover, there may be societal benefits for the presence of some homosexuals.

Red hair is not ‘deviant’ in the same sense, but yes if you wish to strictly define ‘deviant’ as ‘deviates from the norm’ then yes Red Hair is deviant, however it is not truly deviant as it brings about no added benefits or disadvantages.

Yes it does, they are more attractive mates to some people, and less attractive mates to others.

 

[exnihilo]

No, it isn’t. Attractions manifest in certain observable ways. Mental health hospitals have developed accurate ways to determine if one has a certain sexual attraction. They use it all the time to determine if someone who has served time for raping a child is safe to release. Are you just going to deny that this can be satisfactorily determined via observation?

Attraction is an immaterial thing. How could you observe it? If you are talking about physiological responses then yes those can be observed. But they are not the same as attraction. Certain physiological responses might be indicative of attraction. The only way you would ever know that is by correlating the self reported feelings of people with observation. But even after doing that you would not have ever have observed attraction. Mental health hospitals might have claimed to have developed tests. Such claims would indicate a dangerous lack of understanding of the mind. If they only claim to be able to observe and measure physical indications of attraction then they are being reasonable.

 

[Skeptic92]

That reveals some ignorance about how science is funded, and what conclusions scientists make. People raise the same argument with respect to climate science and it is just as vacuous there. Moreover, I must ask why there do not exist any other large institutions that have decided to study the matter in a scientific manner. Why, for example, does the Catholic Church itself not commission a large scale study that would definitively answer these questions? I will tell you. Because if they do conduct their study, and their study reveals that their warnings about the dangers of homosexual parenting were dead wrong, then it calls into question their ability to distinguish between a religious danger and a real world danger. In other words, they would have failed at deducing a real world phenomenon from a philosophical/theological position. That means either they are not good at deduction, or their philosophical/theological starting point was incorrect. Religious organizations find that such a failure would be too costly and therefore do not study the matter scientifically. Or, if they do study it, they study it with methodology that bares only a cursory resemblance to science, e.g. the work done by the Family Research Institute.

Did you research this position at all? There have been several clues discovered through science. Homosexuality is caused by some variations in genes in the X chromosome. In women, these same variations confer big reproductive advantages, e.g. increased fertility. Moreover, there may be societal benefits for the presence of some homosexuals.

Yes it does, they are more attractive mates to some people, and less attractive mates to others.

New Scientist is non-peer reviewed, if you want to talk academics with me, cite academic articles. I mean that I need a Journal not a magazine that is run by respected Academics and published by a respected and reputable publisher, New Scientist doesn’t fulfil either of these. Also New Scientist is making one big linguistic error Homosexual does not equal bisexual, there may be an overlap but for a Scientific magazine that is a stupid error to make that any undergraduate would laugh and rip them to pieces for (one of my Philosophy papers I got deducted marks for equating the Brain and Mind as they are not the same thing, your magazine has made the exact same mistake).

You seem to misunderstand Academics, it’s a publish or perish business you either publish work or you lose your job as a lecturer/Professor (and then the chance of publishing any work, as the easiest funding & Publisher are no longer available). One of my Universities Anthropologists is to be released at the end of this year due to not publishing any work in the past 5/10 years (I can’t remember exactly, but he was subject to disciplinary a few years back), so I’ll ask you with this in mind… What will a researcher likely spend his time on, a controversial study that may or may not get published due to the controversy in the Study which means he loses 1) Money 2) Time, or spend his time on a study and paper that is ‘Safe’ and highly likely to get published gaining 1) Money 2) Security in their job for a few more years?

I accept their may be some added benefits to gene variations found within homosexuals, however you’ll have to find me a study within a peer-reviewed journal by a reputable publisher that states these variations in the gene are the gene that causes homosexuality. However you have the problem that the concordance rate within identical twins is NOT 100% meaning that homosexuality is not purely genetic, so these genetic variations are also found within heterosexuals etc, they are not exclusive to homosexuals.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

There is no reason to believe the brain is the source of feelings or urges. The brain is the organ in which thinking occurs, but it is not the source of thinking. The mind, an immaterial thing, is the source of thinking. The brain merely reflects that thinking. But an attraction is not brain activity.

Scientifically, thinking is just neurological activity in the brain so lets not muddy the waters with philosophical musings on the nature of the human mind. Attraction is brain activity as evident by the brain’s response to external stimuli.

 

[Biblepoe]

Attraction is an immaterial thing. How could you observe it?

Anxiety, depression, and a whole range of psychological phenomenon are also immaterial ‘things’. Do you seriously doubt whether we can accurately assess these to study them and determine whether mental health patients are safe to release into society?

Your personal inability to come up with ways to observe these does not mean that the methods devised by professionals are inadequate. Our verified gain in knowledge about these things have demonstrated that we have been able to observe these things accurately enough.