Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

MindOverMatter2 · #1 Oct 2, '11, 10:19 am

Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

By function and objectivity i mean, does it follow coherently from the fact that i am a "man" that i should or could be homosexual or bisexual? Is bisexuality or homosexuality a coherent expression of the gender identity that is a man or a women?

To put it another way...

1. Does the definition of Human Sexuality begin with "Gender Identity".

Or

2. Does the definition of Human Sexuality begin with "Sexual Attraction".

If it begins with attraction, then wouldn't we have to say that attraction to animals, children, or inanimate objects, are genuine forms of human sexuality also?

If it begins with gender identity, then doesn't that class any sexual attraction which doesn't conform to the intrinsic meaning expressed through our gender identity as a deformity of genuine human sexuality? In other-words, same sex attraction is a deformity of the intrinsic heterosexuality self evidently implied by our Gender Identity as Men and Women.

Please discuss.

**tonyrey** · #2 Oct 2, '11, 11:17 am

If homosexuality is hereditary then it is a genuine form of human Sexuality.

MindOverMatter2 · #3 Oct 2, '11, 11:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

If homosexuality is hereditary then it is a genuine form of human Sexuality.

Your claim here is that inheritance should be the criteria that defines health.

So you would say that the inheritance of a disease, or perhaps a flesh eating virus, is a true expression of a healthy human body, and should therefore not be considered to be an illness's or disease? How about being born with no limbs; should this not be considered a deformity because it is inherited from the genes of their parents?

Do you admit defeat?

babylonsfalling · #4 Oct 2, '11, 11:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

If homosexuality is hereditary then it is a genuine form of human Sexuality.

Genuine human sexuality starts and ends with heterosexuality.
Homosexuality is a disordered perversion that carries tons of disease and typically a very early death.
Being hereditary has nothing to do with it.....drug addiction can be hereditary.

MindOverMatter2 · #5 Oct 2, '11, 11:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by babylonsfalling

Genuine human sexuality starts and ends with heterosexuality.
Homosexuality is a disordered perversion that carries tons of disease and typically a very early death.
Being hereditary has nothing to do with it.....drug addiction can be hereditary.

Heterosexuality also carries disease. STD effects everybody. I think you should drop that line of argument.

VicTorDominican · #6 Oct 2, '11, 11:51 am

In my opinion no, because I am convinced based on evidence and research that homosexuality is a kind of emotional immaturity, not an alternative sexuality.

MindOverMatter2 · #7 Oct 2, '11, 11:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicTorDominican

In my opinion no, because I am convinced based on evidence and research that homosexuality is a kind of emotional immaturity, not an alternative sexuality.

Hmmm. Emotional immaturity? Could you please give a paragraph or two on what you mean by emotional immaturity in relation to same sex attraction?

babylonsfalling · #8 Oct 2, '11, 11:56 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MindOverMatter2

Heterosexuality also carries disease. STD effects everybody. I think you should drop that line of argument.

People have been trying that schtick for years and it's never worked. Everyone knows the disease rates are hugely disproportionate in homosexuals, along with suicide rates, mental problems, etc. It's a degenerated lifestyle with degenerated results.

Hiskid1973 · #9 Oct 2, '11, 12:03 pm

Read Romans 1 and see what you get out of it..

babylonsfalling · #10 Oct 2, '11, 12:12 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiskid1973

Read Romans 1 and see what you get out of it..

I have read Romans 1, homosexuality is one of many sins listed in that chapter.

Hiskid1973 · #11 Oct 2, '11, 12:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by babylonsfalling

I have read Romans 1, homosexuality is one of many sins listed in that chapter.

That was for the OP's question..I guess you understand verses18 to the end...

**tonyrey** · #12 Oct 2, '11, 1:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by babylonsfalling

Being hereditary has nothing to do with it.....drug addiction can be hereditary.

"The origins of homosexuality may never be fully understood, and the phenomenon is so complex and varied -- as is every other kind of love -- that no single neat explanation is likely to suffice to explain any one man or woman, let alone multitudes. But the search for understanding advanced considerably last week with the release of new studies that make the most compelling case yet that homosexual orientation is at least partly genetic.
A team at the National Cancer Institute's Laboratory of Biochemistry reported in the journal Science that families of 76 gay men included a much higher proportion of homosexual male relatives than found in the general population. Intriguingly, almost all the disproportion was on the mother's side of the family. That prompted the researchers to look at the chromosomes that determine gender, known as X and Y. Men get an X from their mother and a Y from their father; women get two X's, one from each parent. Inasmuch as the family trees suggested that male homosexuality may be inherited from mothers, the scientists zeroed in on the X chromosome.
Sure enough, a separate study of the DNA from 40 pairs of homosexual brothers found that 33 pairs shared five different patches of genetic material grouped around a particular area on the X chromosome. Why is that unusual? Because the genes on a son's X chromosome are a highly variable combination of the genes on the mother's two X's, and thus the sequence of genes varies greatly from one brother to another. Statistically, so much overlap between brothers who also share a sexual orientation is unlikely to be just coincidence. The fact that 33 out of 40 pairs of gay brothers were found to share the same sequences of DNA in a particular part of the chromosome suggests that at least one gene related to homosexuality is located in that region. Homosexuality was the only trait that all 33 pairs shared; the brothers didn't all share the same eye color or shoe size or any other obvious characteristic. Nor, according to the study's principal author, Dean Hamer, were they all identifiably effeminate or, for that matter, all macho. They were diverse except for sexual orientation. Says Hamer: "This is by far the strongest evidence to date that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation. We've identified a portion of the genome associated with it."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz1Zen61Erl

VicTorDominican · #13 Oct 2, '11, 1:43 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

"But the search for understanding advanced considerably last week

This was in 1993.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Sure enough, a separate study of the DNA from 40 pairs of homosexual brothers

...who grew up together in the same household with the same controlling mother and do-nothing father?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Statistically,

...on 40 people?!?!?!?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Homosexuality was the only trait that all 33 pairs shared

They forgot to mention whether they grew up in the same household with the same parents, and forgot to mention whether any of them were sexually abused as children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Nor, according to the study's principal author, Dean Hamer, were they all identifiably effeminate or, for that matter, all macho.

Was this during the work day, or after hours at a gay bar where they think nobody's looking?

Other Eric · #14 Oct 2, '11, 1:51 pm

"Gender Identity" is the wrong category from which to begin a discussion of sexuality. "Gender Assignment" would be better. This assures that "gender" is an objective reality to which the subject must conform.

**tonyrey** · #15 Oct 2, '11, 2:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicTorDominican

Quote:

"The origins of homosexuality may never be fully understood, and the phenomenon is so complex and varied -- as is every other kind of love -- that no single neat explanation is likely to suffice to explain any one man or woman, let alone multitudes. But the search for understanding advanced considerably last week with the release of new studies that make the most compelling case yet that homosexual orientation is at least partly genetic.
A team at the National Cancer Institute's Laboratory of Biochemistry reported in the journal Science that families of 76 gay men included a much higher proportion of homosexual male relatives than found in the general population. Intriguingly, almost all the disproportion was on the mother's side of the family. That prompted the researchers to look at the chromosomes that determine gender, known as X and Y. Men get an X from their mother and a Y from their father; women get two X's, one from each parent. Inasmuch as the family trees suggested that male homosexuality may be inherited from mothers, the scientists zeroed in on the X chromosome.
Sure enough, a separate study of the DNA from 40 pairs of homosexual brothers found that 33 pairs shared five different patches of genetic material grouped around a particular area on the X chromosome. Why is that unusual? Because the genes on a son's X chromosome are a highly variable combination of the genes on the mother's two X's, and thus the sequence of genes varies greatly from one brother to another. Statistically, so much overlap between brothers who also share a sexual orientation is unlikely to be just coincidence. The fact that 33 out of 40 pairs of gay brothers were found to share the same sequences of DNA in a particular part of the chromosome suggests that at least one gene related to homosexuality is located in that region. Homosexuality was the only trait that all 33 pairs shared; the brothers didn't all share the same eye color or shoe size or any other obvious characteristic. Nor, according to the study's principal author, Dean Hamer, were they all identifiably effeminate or, for that matter, all macho. They were diverse except for sexual orientation. Says Hamer: "This is by far the strongest evidence to date that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation. We've identified a portion of the genome associated with it."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz1Zen61Erl

This was in 1993.

...who grew up together in the same household with the same controlling mother and do-nothing father?

...on 40 people?!?!?!?!

They forgot to mention whether they grew up in the same household with the same parents, and forgot to mention whether any of them were sexually abused as children.

Was this during the work day, or after hours at a gay bar where they think nobody's looking?

That is far from being the only evidence. Many gays and lesbians say they knew even in childhood that they were different. Moreover they are often distinguishable by some of their psychological traits, physical appearance and behaviour.