The disorder of homosexuality

[Viviphilia]

I feel like I’m talking in circles and that you keep making my point but don’t really answer from the other side of things.

Making your point? I’ve explicitly agreed with your position several times! How many more times do I need to state that I also find it offensive when people flaunt their sexuality in my face? The pictures I’ve seen of gay parades often gross me out.

What you’re failing to see here is that I’m actually in the middle of this issue. No matter how much you want me to lump me in with the “gay agenda” I sympathize with both sides. I’m viewing it as an outsider. I have my own goals and motivations. My individual position is that I’m trying to get you to see the other side of the debate, and I’m failing to get through. Perhaps the reason I’m failing is because I’m not coming from the “gay agenda” side of the debate and I don’t know their arguments well.

Does it make sense to you that if they stay “in the closet” that no one other than those with whom they wish to share their private lives would even KNOW they are homosexual and thus have an opportunity to persecute or demean them?

… In no way do I support or agree with anyone who bullies or persecutes someone.

… It’s only when the agenda is in our face so to speak that we react.

Relationships are public. Marriage is public.

When you demand that lesbians "stay in the closet, you are actually agreeing with and supporting the persecution of lesbians. You are requiring of them that they not have public relationships.

You’ve also made false generalizations about gays which you haven’t shown any remorse for. Remember the comment that gays are “literally” shoving their agenda down your throat? Don’t you realize that you’re exaggerating?

You might be forgetting that the Catholic taboo on homosexuality is centuries old. Your victimhood pales in comparison to what gays have to go through when a core part of their identity is branded as being “perverse.” Imagine being a gay child, hearing that, and condemning yourself for it. It’s no wonder so many gay teens commit suicide. The wonder is why those responsible for placing the seeds of self-hate feel no remorse.

Since I have a lot of experience with homosexuals I feel I can usually identify them upon some kind of personal interaction. But I suspect most people neither notice or care.

I’m assuming that you’re not gay because I think that if you were, you might feel differently. Especially if you were an effeminate boy in high school getting beat up daily for your appearance.

DADT sounds pretty much a win win. Tell me why I’m wrong here?

I’m not sure how homosexuals hiding themselves from public view is a win for them - unless one were blaming the victim for the crimes committed against her.

I understand condemning the sin of sodomy. That taboo is clearly an ancient tradition. But I don’t understand why loving, public relationships between lesbians would be condemned.

 

[Viviphilia]

Have always thought of homosexuals as neurotics, with a distorted view of reality. It must be torture for those who know this but can do nothing about it.

I imagine the torture comes from having a core part of their identity and nature constantly branded as “neurotic,” “perverse,” “deviant,” and “sinful.”

 

[epan]

Epan that is not relevant. Murder exists in every culture too. Religion exists in every culture. So what? Yes it means that homosexuality is part of the human condition. We don’t know what causes some to be attracted to their own sex any more than we know what makes a seemingly normal woman decide to drown her children in a bathtub.(And before the shrieks and howls NO I am not equating homosexual sex with murder) We don’t know what makes people engage in rituals but rituals seem to be part of every culture. There are lots of different behaviors that seem to spring from nowhere. So what?

I think the objection to the absolute determination on the part of homosexual apologists to make homosexuality “normal” colors their entire agenda. No one who’s read the Constitution thinks they should not have the same rights as everyone else. But what I and I think many object to is trying to make Jack and Jill equivalent to Jack and Fred. It’s not and never will be. Whether you look at homosexual relations from a biological, a theological or even a cultural perspective you cannot make them so.

Lisa

There is a lot of convolution going on. The statement was made that homosexuality is disordered because it does not reproduce. I merely pointed out that, while it does not reproduce sui generis, it is persistent, which implies a certain order. It was merely a play on words, and an observation that it is a naturally occurring sexual orientation. Simple as that.

Observation of the occurrence of the condition is not a comment about the morality of sexual orientation, or the morality of sexual behavior. The Catholic Church promotes its opinion, so do other groups, religions, individuals, etc…

 

[Viviphilia]

Handedness and epigenetics is what you are after.

Not really. That question belongs in the labs. That Humans have natural variations is the point I’m supporting. Left handedness is one of those variations, even though in the past it was thought of as something “sinister.” It appears to me that sex and gender variations are another set of natural Human variations. It also appears to me that epigentic effects would be a fruitful place to look for causes of such variations.

Here is one epigentic effect that correlates with homosexuality.

Hum Genet. 2006 Feb;118(6):691-4.
Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men.
Bocklandt et al.

No, left handedness is not a disease…

Good, I’m glad we agree. Let’s continue down this line of reasoning. Is left handedness a disorder? Is it “abnormal?” If not, why not? Normally, people are right handed. Being left handed seems to cause a lot of difficulty for the “patient.” Why do you suppose the stigma against left-handedness has disappeared and the phenomena is now usually thought of as merely a variation?

 

[chris62]

Yet, gay people are born everywhere and throughout time. So the phenomenon is preserved by generation. For me, this is the strongest genetic argument. If it were all cultural, then it would not be so persistent cross culturally.

Really?
So homosexuality is just as common in California as it is in Fiji, is it?

 

[LisaA]

Making your point? I’ve explicitly agreed with your position several times! How many more times do I need to state that I also find it offensive when people flaunt their sexuality in my face? The pictures I’ve seen of gay parades often gross me out.

Relationships are public. Marriage is public.

When you demand that lesbians "stay in the closet, you are actually agreeing with and supporting the persecution of lesbians. You are requiring of them that they not have public relationships.

You’ve also made false generalizations about gays which you haven’t shown any remorse for. Remember the comment that gays are “literally” shoving their agenda down your throat? Don’t you realize that you’re exaggerating?

You might be forgetting that the Catholic taboo on homosexuality is centuries old. Your victimhood pales in comparison to what gays have to go through when a core part of their identity is branded as being “perverse.” Imagine being a gay child, hearing that, and condemning yourself for it. It’s no wonder so many gay teens commit suicide. The wonder is why those responsible for placing the seeds of self-hate feel no remorse.

I’m assuming that you’re not gay because I think that if you were, you might feel differently. Especially if you were an effeminate boy in high school getting beat up daily for your appearance.

I’m not sure how homosexuals hiding themselves from public view is a win for them - unless one were blaming the victim for the crimes committed against her.

I understand condemning the sin of sodomy. That taboo is clearly an ancient tradition. But I don’t understand why loving, public relationships between lesbians would be condemned.

I think you’re getting closer to understanding my point and I appreciate your comment that you also don’t appreciate some of the overtly ‘out there’ displays by gay activists…note the recent visit to the White House where two homosexual activists made a big show of flipping off a portrait of Ronald Reagan…gosh doesn’t that raise the level of discourse?

However what makes you think I or any of the others on this forum want to “condemn” lesbian relationships? OK once more, if I see two females (or males) walking together or if they live together or attend company functions together, one may make assumptions about their relationship but unless THEY make it an issue I believe that 99.99% of the time no one is going to raise an eyebrow or care what they do in their private life. So the theory that I want lesbians or gays (males) to “hide” is ridiculous. It’s not a matter of hiding or not participating in daily life, work, shopping, eating out, attending events etc but a matter of not making sexual activities an issue.

FWIW I have the exact feeling about male female couples. I don’t want to know about anyone else’s private lives, truly I don’t CARE what they do in bed. I don’t even think about it.

Specifically I am opposed to forcing a gay agenda on children through mandatory classes, textbook material, requirements to read homosexual promoting books. Why should there be a “Day of Silence” at schools to support homosexuals? Why is this even part of the curriculum. You think there would be more interest in improving reading, math and science rather than all of this extraneous stuff that really is up to the parents (sex ed, sexual mores and values).

I am frankly disgusted when homosexuals make a big whoop de do about being homosexual. “Hi I’m Mayor X and I’m the first openly gay mayor in the country!” Why does this matter? Does being homosexual make him a better mayor?

I really don’t know where children are being told their sexual orientation is perverse but again why are they sharing it with those who have no business knowing? Also FWIW no one condones schoolyard bullying but let’s face it presumed homosexuals are hardly the only victims…fat kids, short kids, tall kids, kids with pimples, kids with glasses…if you are perceived different then unfortunately you may be bullied. Again this is a sad part of human nature. I guess the odd thing is that I remember long before gay was ‘out there’ most adults were aware it existed and frankly the majority couldn’t have cared less. Most peoplewere and are happy to live and let live. The Phelps gang is uniformly condemned for their hateful words and demonstrations. Don’t claim that because some Americans don’t want to be cheerleaders for a gay agenda, do not believe same sex marriage is equivalent to man woman marriage, and want to have freedom to NOT participate in someone’s private life that we must hate them. We don’t.

Lisa

 

[chris62]

I think you’re getting closer to understanding my point and I appreciate your comment that you also don’t appreciate some of the overtly ‘out there’ displays by gay activists…note the recent visit to the White House where two homosexual activists made a big show of flipping off a portrait of Ronald Reagan…gosh doesn’t that raise the level of discourse?

However what makes you think I or any of the others on this forum want to “condemn” lesbian relationships? OK once more, if I see two females (or males) walking together or if they live together or attend company functions together, one may make assumptions about their relationship but unless THEY make it an issue I believe that 99.99% of the time no one is going to raise an eyebrow or care what they do in their private life. So the theory that I want lesbians or gays (males) to “hide” is ridiculous. It’s not a matter of hiding or not participating in daily life, work, shopping, eating out, attending events etc but a matter of not making sexual activities an issue.

FWIW I have the exact feeling about male female couples. I don’t want to know about anyone else’s private lives, truly I don’t CARE what they do in bed. I don’t even think about it.

Specifically I am opposed to forcing a gay agenda on children through mandatory classes, textbook material, requirements to read homosexual promoting books. Why should there be a “Day of Silence” at schools to support homosexuals? Why is this even part of the curriculum. You think there would be more interest in improving reading, math and science rather than all of this extraneous stuff that really is up to the parents (sex ed, sexual mores and values).

I am frankly disgusted when homosexuals make a big whoop de do about being homosexual. “Hi I’m Mayor X and I’m the first openly gay mayor in the country!” Why does this matter? Does being homosexual make him a better mayor?

I really don’t know where children are being told their sexual orientation is perverse but again why are they sharing it with those who have no business knowing? Also FWIW no one condones schoolyard bullying but let’s face it presumed homosexuals are hardly the only victims…fat kids, short kids, tall kids, kids with pimples, kids with glasses…if you are perceived different then unfortunately you may be bullied. Again this is a sad part of human nature. I guess the odd thing is that I remember long before gay was ‘out there’ most adults were aware it existed and frankly the majority couldn’t have cared less. Most peoplewere and are happy to live and let live. The Phelps gang is uniformly condemned for their hateful words and demonstrations. Don’t claim that because some Americans don’t want to be cheerleaders for a gay agenda, do not believe same sex marriage is equivalent to man woman marriage, and want to have freedom to NOT participate in someone’s private life that we must hate them. We don’t.

Lisa

God bless you, Lisa.

 

[PRmerger]

There is a lot of convolution going on. The statement was made that homosexuality is disordered because it does not reproduce

Actually, the correct way to express it is that homosexual sex is disordered because it is not ordered towards reproduction. Not because “it does not reproduce.”

 

[Petersmate]

Actually, the correct way to express it is that homosexual sex is disordered because it is not ordered towards reproduction. Not because “it does not reproduce.”

Homosexual sex is disordered, yes absolutely correct.

 

[Stephen168]

Is left handedness a disorder?

To what is the hand ordered?

 

[LisaA]

Good, I’m glad we agree. Let’s continue down this line of reasoning. Is left handedness a disorder? Is it “abnormal?” If not, why not? Normally, people are right handed. Being left handed seems to cause a lot of difficulty for the “patient.” Why do you suppose the stigma against left-handedness has disappeared and the phenomena is now usually thought of as merely a variation?

A little off topic but I completely disagree with your conclusion. Yes there are more right handed than left handed people. Just because there is more of a particular trait doesn’t mean those who don’t share it are abnormal. There are more people with black hair than red hair. Does that mean red haired people are 'abnormal?" What an odd line of reasoning.

I think you are trying rather desperately to equate a rather minor characteristic that does not compromise the life, health or survival of an individual or species with homosexuality which is a far more challenging condition. Certainly in ancient times being left handed was rather inconvenient…tools, weapons etc were made for right handed people. A rider is taught to holds the reins in his left hand so his right is free to wield the sword or axe. A left handed soldier will simply change the reins to the right hand. So one simply adapts. As I said, I’m left handed. OK so I have to turn a butter knife bass ackwards and the scissors holes are wrong but it’s hardly a life threatening condition. You really overstate the case by calling this a stigma. When? Where? Ancient Rome or some tribe in the desert?

Trying not to get too off track but you keep bringing up left handedness and claiming somehow it relates to homosexuality. I’m trying to figure this out.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

There is a lot of convolution going on. The statement was made that homosexuality is disordered because it does not reproduce. I merely pointed out that, while it does not reproduce sui generis, it is persistent, which implies a certain order. It was merely a play on words, and an observation that it is a naturally occurring sexual orientation. Simple as that.

Observation of the occurrence of the condition is not a comment about the morality of sexual orientation, or the morality of sexual behavior. The Catholic Church promotes its opinion, so do other groups, religions, individuals, etc…

You’re kind of mixing things up with the above statement (bolded). The term “disordered” is not specifically a biological reference whereas reproduction is a biological function. I stated that homosexuality is abnormal from a biological perspective…does not allow reproduction and has detrimental health consequences. The Church’s teaching is also based on natural law and because of that the teaching does mirror the biological conclusion.

That something is naturally occuring is merely a statement. It is neither a positive or negative. Nature produces both good and bad things.

Lisa

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

A little off topic but I completely disagree with your conclusion. Yes there are more right handed than left handed people. Just because there is more of a particular trait doesn’t mean those who don’t share it are abnormal. There are more people with black hair than red hair. Does that mean red haired people are 'abnormal?" What an odd line of reasoning.

I think you are trying rather desperately to equate a rather minor characteristic that does not compromise the life, health or survival of an individual or species with homosexuality which is a far more challenging condition. Certainly in ancient times being left handed was rather inconvenient…tools, weapons etc were made for right handed people. A rider is taught to holds the reins in his left hand so his right is free to wield the sword or axe. A left handed soldier will simply change the reins to the right hand. So one simply adapts. As I said, I’m left handed. OK so I have to turn a butter knife bass ackwards and the scissors holes are wrong but it’s hardly a life threatening condition. You really overstate the case by calling this a stigma. When? Where? Ancient Rome or some tribe in the desert?

Trying not to get too off track but you keep bringing up left handedness and claiming somehow it relates to homosexuality. I’m trying to figure this out.

Lisa

Those aren’t normal and I believe that is her point. Just because something isn’t normal doesn’t means it’s bad.

 

[CopticChristian]

Not really. That question belongs in the labs. That Humans have natural variations is the point I’m supporting. Left handedness is one of those variations, even though in the past it was thought of as something “sinister.” It appears to me that sex and gender variations are another set of natural Human variations. It also appears to me that epigentic effects would be a fruitful place to look for causes of such variations.

Here is one epigentic effect that correlates with homosexuality.

Hum Genet. 2006 Feb;118(6):691-4.
Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men.
Bocklandt et al.

Good, I’m glad we agree. Let’s continue down this line of reasoning. Is left handedness a disorder? Is it “abnormal?” If not, why not? Normally, people are right handed. Being left handed seems to cause a lot of difficulty for the “patient.” Why do you suppose the stigma against left-handedness has disappeared and the phenomena is now usually thought of as merely a variation?

Viv,

I have read too many articles in my life and when I read I notice things you may not notice…

Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men.
Bocklandt S, Horvath S, Vilain E, Hamer DH.
SourceDepartment of Human Genetics, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. sbocklandt@mednet.ucla.edu

Abstract
Human sexual preference is a sexually dimorphic trait with a substantial genetic component. Linkage of male sexual orientation to markers on the X chromosome has been reported in some families. Here, we measured X chromosome inactivation ratios in 97 mothers of homosexual men and 103 age-matched control women without gay sons. The number of women with extreme skewing of X-inactivation was significantly higher in mothers of gay men (13/97=13%) compared to controls (4/103=4%) and increased in mothers with two or more gay sons (10/44=23%). Our findings** support **a role for the X chromosome in regulating sexual orientation in a subgroup of gay men.

PMID: 16369763 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Substantial genetic component…not complete

Some families not all families

Very small sample and the statistical analysis method is not known here

Support not confirm

I would not base any opinion on this other than to say that it is being looked at…

 

[ReapReason]

Those aren’t normal and I believe that is her point. Just because something isn’t normal doesn’t means it’s bad.

That depends on what you mean by normal; and it is not a question of what is normally experienced; it is about what is essential to a things nature. Being black or white, right handed or left handed is not an impediment to my functionality as a human being, it does not impede my nature. However having SSA would impede my ability to fully express my self as a man or a women. This is self evident. That’s what makes it an essential disorder, because it goes against the essential nature of men and women insofar as it stops them from fully expressing their potential as such, and encourages us to act against our essential nature.

 

[LisaA]

Those aren’t normal and I believe that is her point. Just because something isn’t normal doesn’t means it’s bad.

Being left handed is abnormal? Having red hair is abnormal? Thinking that Cilantro tastes like soap is abnormal? Maybe you could say these factors are less frequent than others but abnormal?

Agree that abnormal doesn’t mean bad. Magic Johnson had abnormal skills in basketball. That is a good thing!

Still equating homosexuality with rather innocuous physical differences seems to be a stretch.

Lisa

 

[epan]

Really?
So homosexuality is just as common in California as it is in Fiji, is it?

One would expect the same incidence as any other rural area. Or do you disagree? Concentrations can be higher in big cities. In California, San Francisco ended up with a huge population because guys getting kicked out of the services for homosexuality during WW2, were discharged in SF. Rather than go home, and explain why they were home early, a lot of gay men stayed in SF. This lead to a gay subculture which attracted more gay people. So, that is an anomaly in population density.

 

[LisaA]

That depends on what you mean by normal; and it is not a question of what is normally experienced; it is about what is essential to a things nature. Being black or white, right handed or left handed is not an impediment to my functionality as a human being, it does not impede my nature. However having SSA would impede my ability to fully express my self as a man or a women. This is self evident. That’s what makes it an essential disorder, because it goes against the essential nature of men and women insofar as it stops them from fully expressing their potential as such, and encourages us to act against our essential nature.

I appreciate your analysis and think it’s spot on. Thank you

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

One would expect the same incidence as any other rural area. Or do you disagree? Concentrations can be higher in big cities. In California, San Francisco ended up with a huge population because guys getting kicked out of the services for homosexuality during WW2, were discharged in SF. Rather than go home, and explain why they were home early, a lot of gay men stayed in SF. This lead to a gay subculture which attracted more gay people. So, that is an anomaly in population density.

Very interesting. I had never known why SF was such a magnet for homosexuals. There are certain professions that have a larger share of homosexuals than the general population. I know the stereotype is hairdressers and fashion designers but at horse shows particularly certain breeds and disciplines the majority of professionals are homosexual. It may be that a subculture develops where homosexuals feel unthreatened just as in SF.

I’ve have heard this happened in certain seminaries, that attracted those with SSA tendencies and unfortunately kindled a subculture that attracted more and more with SSA. I have heard in the mid 20th Century the priesthood was also known as a place where a man could remain single and not inspire a lot of questions from well meaning friends and relatives.

Lisa

 

[RobbyS]

I imagine the torture comes from having a core part of their identity and nature constantly branded as “neurotic,” “perverse,” “deviant,” and “sinful.”

Well, the same was true of the lepers in Jewish society.But they were nonetheless diseased. Today we treat persons with Hansen’s disease much more kindly, but we try to cure the disease, not pretend it does not exist.