Homosexuality

[The Mad Linguist]

ME: Being innate does not necessarily mean genetic. It could easily be caused by factors in the developmental environment of the foetus, for instance.

Christian: I don't understand this. Is this distinction valid? If innate does not mean a physcal trait, then are you talking about a metaphysical trait. If the environment is the cause, then it can't be innate, right?

By "innate" I mean "a feature of a person that is built into them and over which they can exercise no choice". I was simply pointing out that an innate feature need not be genetic. If it's caused by the environment before you were born, then it clearly is not a matter of choice.

Me: Why do we assume sexuality to be innate rather than a matter subject to personal choice? Because the vast majority of persons report that it is so.

Christian: The vast mayority of people report miracles (supernatural events)in their lives...Appeal to the masses???

Miracles are events which are in theory open to being viewed by anyone. A feeling of an attraction is internal to the human being and can most easily be accessed by asking someone about it (although that's not the only way, as others have pointed out, experimentation is possible). Therefore, the two are not comparable.

And I seriously doubt that as many people can report experiencing a miracle as can report experiencing sexual attraction to another human being.

Me: I have never heard anyone claim to be an "ex-homosexual" who was not an adherent of a brand of Christianity that considers homosexuality a sin. Clearly, such testimony is not unbiased.

Christian: By the same token, the testimony of homosexuals is not unbiased, right? Does being a Christian render the testimony untrustworthy? Why? Bias again? How about a Muslim?

I didn't say "being a Christian". I said "an adherent of a brand of Christianity that considers homosexuality a sin". If someone has a vested interest in considering homosexuality a sin, clearly they have an interest in claiming that homosexuality is a matter of choice. And the fact that such people are the ONLY people who claim that homosexuality is a matter of choice is very, very suspicious.

No one's testimony is completely unbiased. But in the case of anti-gay fundamentalists, there is a great, obvious, easily explicable, enormous bias.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

A very (very) minor point ...

Just watch any toddle kick a ball. After any number of kicks, you will know if he/she is left-handed.

No, I think this is wrong!!!!! My son, from the ages of 1 and a half to 3 always kicked with his left foot. I though this meant he would turn out to be left-handed (well, left-footed - you know what I mean!). Then, at 3, he started kicking with his right foot. Then I realised what had happened. In his younger days, we generally stood opposite each and kicked the balls to each other. I kick with my right foot, and he was simply mimicing me - the reverse image meant that he kicked left. I've since tested this with a few other young children, and it certainly seems to hold. if I repeatedly kick with my right, they respond by kicking with their left. If I kick with my left, they start kicking with their right. Obviously, at some stage around 3, the "mimicing" stops and their "natural" tendencies take over.

Anyway, really has nothing to do with your argument at all, but just wanted to point out that I've experienced the opposite of your 'toddlers kicking" analogy. Purely anecdotal, of course....

 

[Fade]

Who rates this? You must agree with me that any qualitatively rating is subjective and biased on both camps.

No, I don't, in fact.

But this implies you don't have an agenda, and you do. I, for one, assume it is a legitimate one and that you are 100% honest in what you believe. But you still have one, even if it is only to say that homosexuality has a genetic component.

My agenda is the truth of the matter. If it were to come out tomorrow that homosexuality is a learned behaviour, and that were well supported, that is the position I would take. Right now, I have no control over what my body tells me I am attracted too.

I wrote a post a few weeks ago, and I think I should repeat the gist of it here:

I was born gay. I had no control over it. In fact, until the age of 14 or so I didn't even know there WAS a word for it. I pointed out to my mother one day that I thought a man was cute. Later, she sat me down and asked me some questions, and explained to me the differences between same gender love, and opposite gender love. She told me that neither was right, and neither was wrong. Both just were, and that I shouldn't feel pressured to change what I was.

Looking back with the eyes of adulthood, I can find not a single reference to homosexuality anywhere in my childhood. I played with the boys, I was shy around the girls. I was just like every other little boy. I was shown more images of male-female sexual interactions than I can think of. We used to tell dirty jokes to one another, and use words like "pussy" and "boobies" because we thought they were dirty and fun to use. I was raised to love women, not men. Yet, here I am.

Where did my homosexuality come from? Where did I learn it? I definitely wasn't raised facing any sort of homosexual stereotype, I wasn't raised to be effeminate. I didn't really cook, or clean, or sew. I got dirty, I tumbled, I pulled girls hair.

But, one day, I decided that men were really cute. That day, the whole world opened up. Before that, I didn't understand what I was feeling. It was as if somebody were telling jokes, and I was the only person in the room not laughing. I didn't understand why we were supposed to fall in love with and marry girls, because it never felt right. The storybook weddings just never felt right.

These feelings absolutely defy my environment, as there was no mention of these feelings even existing anywhere in my upbringing. I grew up sterile of homosexuality, and I am a homosexual. It's my tiny little cross to bear, and one that nature must given me. There is no other explanation.

 

[Yahzi]

Loki

Obviously, at some stage around 3, the "mimicing" stops and their "natural" tendencies take over.

An alternative explanation might be that around 3, they realize what mirror image means, and start actually mimicking you more faithfully. I think 3 is around the age they figure out mirrors.

Still, it's a cool experiement.


The Mad Linguist
Your patience amazes me. I would have lost it over trying explain that things can be innate without being genetic. I salute you.


Fade

Because we all know Yahzi is a huge homo and is working with some sort of agenda, right?

In yer dreams, buddy!

P.S. Thanks for the personal story. I think your mom deserves a salute, too.


Christian
Where to begin? The Mad Linguist answered most of your objections, probably more clearly than I could have. In case it wasn't obvious, I agree completely with everything he said.

Yazhi equate Christians to fascists and anything that can hurt Christians is good material to use.

This is unfair. I was explaining the political context of this discussion, which is entirely separate from its rational content. Don't commit ad hominen and reject my arguments just because you don't like the purpose I will put the conclusion to. That doesn't invalidate them.

Note: When Fade discredits the ex-gay movement by pointing out that they have an agenda, he is not committing ad hominen. He is excluding evidence as untrustworthy, which is an entirely different issue. I hope you see that.

I really don't know how to put it any plainer to you. You assume that being left-handed is genetic, and you are so certain that somebody showed this scientifically that you are completely unware of what evidence, studies, or procedures were used. Yet when we tell you that exactly the same evidence and procedures were used to determine that homosexuality is genetic, you balk.

To be precise, we don't know that left-handedness is genetic. We know that it is innate, which is not quite the same thing, although very close (as The Mad Linguist explained). Nobody has isolated the gene for left-handedness. However, we do know that Spinal Bifida is genetic: we have identified the gene, and we can test you for it and tell you whether or not you have a chance of having a child with that condition. My point is that left-handedness is not as well proved as you think, and yet at no point are you willing to back down on its obvious innate nature. I'm not saying you should: I think the case is proved to scientific standards: I'm just pointing out that you can't bitch about the method used to show that homosexuality is innate unless you are willing to backtrack on left-handedness.

And with scientific tests, we can, with 100% accuracy determine who is what.

We can, with similar accuracy (I assure you it's not 100% for either case) determine homosexuality. You can measure the erotic response without asking people how they feel. You put a little meter on their wiener and show them pictures. This has been done, and people like Fade react to pictures of Tom Cruise the same way people like me react to pictures of Nichole Kidman.

What part of this don't you get?

BTW, when investigating things like how people feel, their personal testimony is valid scientific evidence. You overcome the possibilty that they are lying through a variety of ways, such as making it anoynmous (so they don't have a reason to lie) and taking lots of samples (so you aren't depending on one person's version). If you don't understand how your testimony about how you feel is different than your testimony about what you saw, I can't explain it.

Finally, as the Mad Linguist points out: our best evidence that sexuality is innate is our own internal selves/ It is absolutely not a choice for me: it never was, even though I had the option presented to me at various times. Times when I couldn't land a girl. Desperate times, like high school. And yet even though I was friends with gays who would have had sex with me, I never considered it, no matter how desperate I got.

Does this not reflect your expierence? Are you one of those lucky few who can choose, or have you just never been exposed? I suggest you go to a gay bar, pick out a pretty boy, and share a few drinks. Then look inside yourself and ask: could I choose this, even if I wanted to?

If you can't choose it: if, like me, you can barely even imagine choosing it in some alternate dimension: then what on earth makes you think it's a choice for them?

Yes, but this test does not show there is a genetic component. Actually, it could show that males are suceptible to this type of conditioning.

Then why wouldn't handedness tests merely show that people were susceptible to conditioning? Because they are done on toddlers? But sexual attraction hardly exists at that stage, so how could you reasonably test for it in toddlers?

Furthermore, isn't (as Fade related) all of the conditioning in our society against homosexuality? Where in the heck would this conditioning for it come from?

This clearly shows that you have a double standard. The test you accept for left-handedness (non-verbal response to a stimulus) you simply refuse to accept for homosexuality.

I'm afraid all of the facts in the world cannot defeat prejudice.

 

[Dancing David]

Posted by Christian

Ok, so if we are stuck with anecdotal evidence and they go both ways. Why would the default position be that there is a genetic component? Why not the opposite?

Two statement and a number of ansewrs.

Where do you get the anecdotal information that homosexuality is a lifestyle? I am friend with members of my local gay community (funny thing, while hetero almost all my friends are gay). And while I haven't done a survey I do know that there are many (95%) who struggled with being gay and dening it during thier youth. I think that maybe having a survey would be good , but the problem is that you aren't going to get honest answers from 'straight' men who are actual gay or bisexual, so it would end up being just a survey of gay men. My belief is that there will be a very high percentage of men who say that the were born gay and very few who say it is a lifestyle.

On the life style thing my best freind from high school made this great statement, that he was gay but not a homosexual. Of course he also wanted a career in politic , so he knew he had to be 'straight'.


I never said that the default position was that there was a genetic basis, from my experience, talking to gay men, and observation , I just happen to believe that there is a very strong biological component to sexual attraction.

Counter arguement: On the whole lifestyle thing, I have known many abusers and addicts and alocoholics in my day. Would you say that that is a lifestyle or do you believe that tere may be a genetic predisposition to substance dependance?

 

[Yahzi]

From : http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=8&id=3806

To quote John Boswell (the A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History at Yale University):

"Romans 1:26-27 reads, 'For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.'

The 'nature' in this passage is the Greek word 'phusis' which means personal nature or disposition. It's the same Greek word that occurs, for example, in I Corinthians 11:14, 'Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?', where Paul is probably using 'phusis' to mean custom or tradition.

There's a lot of debate about just what 'phusis' connoted at that time; but the one thing that's clear is that Paul isn't talking about 'natural law' here. (The concept of a 'natural law,' one that was sinful to violate even for those ignorant of divine law, probably never even occurred to Paul, and certainly didn't occur to any of the many early Christian theologists who commented on this passage; the idea didn't show up in theology for another thousand years. Also, we know from other sources that homosexuality was generally regarded at the time as a natural physical trait; if Paul disagreed with the prevailing belief, there are plenty of other places in his writings where you'd expect him to say so, and he doesn't.)

The word 'against' in 'that which is against nature' is a clear mistranslation. The Greek word here is 'para,' which means not 'against' but 'in excess of.' (It's translated as 'more than' in the preceeding verse, in fact, and in many other places in the New Testament. The Greek word meaning 'in opposition to' is 'kata.') The very same phrase, 'para phusis,' is even used to describe the activity of God Himself in Romans 11:23-24, 'And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree.'

What Paul seems to be condemning here is not homosexuality per se (in fact, the absence of any reference to homosexuality in the list of sins that immediately follows, in verses 29-31, is striking) but the satisfying of one's desires in excess of what is fitting to one's nature. (This is also how the passage was interpreted by early Christian theologians; Saint John Chrysostom, for example, felt that it was an important point that the men and women had previously enjoyed satisfactory heterosexual relations."


So this is how people assert that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Since I usually restrict myself to the KJV, it doesn't help me, but I thought other people might find it interesting.

 

[Christian]

I do want to respond, and hopefully I will. I just need to find the time. I a couple of days maybe.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

I think Christian ran away...

 

[Loki]

ImpyTimpy,

I think Christian ran away

Anytime I mention "that poster" in any post of mine, he seems to reply within minutes. Here, let me try... "Christian? Are you out there???"...

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
I was wondering the same. Come back Christian!! I'm one of your biggest peeps!!! (and why did you ever split with Edge?)

Thanks (I think) What is "split with Edge"?

You know, your former partner! How quickly they forget.

 

[Ratman_tf]

** Another anecdote warning **

I know a man who was brought up in a family of 3 other brothers. His brothers are all straight but he's gay. When he was younger he pretended to be straight and even got into a long term relationship with a woman - basically kept trying to tell himself he's not gay. He simply couldn't keep it up anymore and finally him and the woman split up. Since then he came out of the closet and admitted that since he was little he always knew he was somehow different but didn't realise he was gay until later into his teenage years. He's had a hard life and from my chats with him he wishes he was straight.

From that alone I can see homosexuality does not appear to be a choice.

I disagree.
Children (and adults!) often act bad for attention. They prefer negative attention to no attention at all.

Here, at this point, someone is bound to ask me if I believe that people act gay to get attention. I don't. I'm just pointing out that negative conceqences will not necessarily preclude making one choice over another.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

I'm not sure how helpful this is going to be, since it does show the answer to be indeterminant, but leaning strongly towards genetic.

http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~kebF92/genetics.html

There are other articles out there as well, but I haven't had much time to get or read them.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

That doesn't make sense.

In order to get negative attention from being gay, the guy would've had to "act gay" from a young age. As I said, he tried to act straight (he got married and had a child)...

So if we were to make sense of what you said, it'd mean acting straight was done for negative attention... That makes even less sense.

I disagree.
Children (and adults!) often act bad for attention. They prefer negative attention to no attention at all.

Here, at this point, someone is bound to ask me if I believe that people act gay to get attention. I don't. I'm just pointing out that negative conceqences will not necessarily preclude making one choice over another.

 

[c4ts]

I'm not sure how helpful this is going to be, since it does show the answer to be indeterminant, but leaning strongly towards genetic.

http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~kebF92/genetics.html

There are other articles out there as well, but I haven't had much time to get or read them.

If it's genetic, that means it can be treated. Or would this be going too far?

 

[Ratman_tf]

That doesn't make sense.

In order to get negative attention from being gay, the guy would've had to "act gay" from a young age. As I said, he tried to act straight (he got married and had a child)...

So if we were to make sense of what you said, it'd mean acting straight was done for negative attention... That makes even less sense.

I never said he acted gay to get attention. I don't know the details of his life. My point was that people do not always act in a way that seems easy or has a positive outcome. The argument that people wouldn't choose to be gay, or reveal that they were abducted by aliens, or say that they heard the voice of Jesus because they may have a difficult life or be persecuted isn't necessarily true.
As a generalization, it's not valid. IMHO.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Actually, I don't think you can lump alien abductions or hearing voices of Jesus with being gay together. The first two have entire groups of "believers" that flock to these people. People who claim these things do it in order to get that 10 seconds on TV I believe.

The last one carries with it a lot of social pressure especially if you're in highschool. You're not likely to appear in some UFO special if all you say is you're gay. You're more likely to be made fun of or rejected by your family.

I never said he acted gay to get attention. I don't know the details of his life. My point was that people do not always act in a way that seems easy or has a positive outcome. The argument that people wouldn't choose to be gay, or reveal that they were abducted by aliens, or say that they heard the voice of Jesus because they may have a difficult life or be persecuted isn't necessarily true.
As a generalization, it's not valid. IMHO.

 

[BMM]

A few years ago my friend Jerry Knuijt (author of "The Hoax of Mormonism") did some investigating into the christian stand on homosexuality. During our discussions, he pointed out that he could only find one reference in the Bible that dealt with homosexuality. If I recall correctly it was in Deuteronomy. What he found that was interesting was that even though homosexuality was an "abomination," incest--it seems--wasn't. At least it wasn't specifically listed in the Hebrew laws. We all know the present christian stand on that subject. Knowing what I do about the history of religions, I cannot accept the Bible as the word of God when all the evidence points to its authorship being men who seemd to be recording the customs and mores of their times. The fact that customs have changed over time--in all religions--just goes to show that the Bible is subject to interpretation by those who follow its philosophy, and that those people are just as willing to reject such philosophy as someone who might disagree with their beliefs. And, there are many other examples of selective interpretations of the Bible by christians in history that I'm aware of. So I ask the question. Why should I, or anyone else follow some fundamentalist's selective interpretations of biblical law when all they have to do is change the rules any time the bible disagrees with their notions of right and wrong? I think I'll mind my own business and allow homosexuals to do the same.

 

[Yahzi]

If it's genetic, that means it can be treated. Or would this be going too far?

If heterosexuality is genetic, then that means it can be treated, too. In fact, there is some researcher somewhere who can make flys gay by setting the temperature to the right level when they are being born. Thus saving all those flys from a boring life of heterosexuality.

"Treated" is a loaded word. It assumes that what you are doing is helping the person. Changing a person's sexual orientation, or just making them more like everyone else, is not necessarily helping them.

Why not say that being black can be treated, since it's just a genetic condition?

 

[Ratman_tf]

Actually, I don't think you can lump alien abductions or hearing voices of Jesus with being gay together. The first two have entire groups of "believers" that flock to these people. People who claim these things do it in order to get that 10 seconds on TV I believe.

The last one carries with it a lot of social pressure especially if you're in highschool. You're not likely to appear in some UFO special if all you say is you're gay. You're more likely to be made fun of or rejected by your family.

And some people don't seek to be outcast? People don't rebel against what society considers 'normal'? People have never been known to do things that would make their family reject them?

And when you rebel against one thing, you can usually find another group of people who believe the same thing you do, and will support you.

But in trying to explain my point, I keep getting sidetracked from it. Here it is:
People can and do choose to bring negative concequences upon themselves for various reasons. Therefore, there is evidence that:
Someone could never have chosen to be gay because of the negative concequences isn't necessarily true.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

And some people don't seek to be outcast? People don't rebel against what society considers 'normal'? People have never been known to do things that would make their family reject them?

And when you rebel against one thing, you can usually find another group of people who believe the same thing you do, and will support you.

I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm simply pointing out that this would in fact be a very extreme case.

But in trying to explain my point, I keep getting sidetracked from it. Here it is:
People can and do choose to bring negative concequences upon themselves for various reasons. Therefore, there is evidence that:
Someone could never have chosen to be gay because of the negative concequences isn't necessarily true.

Of course this is a possibility. However, chances of that happening are usually slim.

Don't forget, there are people who declare that they used to be gay but no longer are.

Anything is possible, the thing is it just doesn't happen often enough to be considered as a possible cause.