Is Homosexuality Biologically Determined?/New Insight into Research

[InSearchofGrace]

Originally Posted by essie7777

...

To engage appropriately in this subject the "religious and social conservatives" need to start dealing in FACT.

And i think he sums it up well in respect to why these falsehoods are causing more problems than can ever be justified by anyone perpetuating these myths.

All Quotes from the original article by Standon L Jones "Sexual Orientation and Reason: On the Implications of False Beliefs about Homosexuality"

The important message of the article is in the conclusions the author reached, condensed below:

1. Increased risk for psychological distress and physical health complications of various sorts associated with being gay or lesbian does not validate construal of homosexuality as a mental illness; further, this increased risk may legitimately be attributed to some degree to abusive or even violent treatment by those who disapprove of their choices; however, we cannot eliminate the possibility that this elevated distress is to some degree or partially an entailment of living life contrary to the normative grain of our gendered sexuality.
   
   
2. Sexual orientation is quite dis-analogous to race.
   
   
3. Homosexuality is not immutable, but there is little basis to believe that every individual homosexual person can reorient to heterosexuality.
   
   
4. While there are homosexual relationship that are equivalent on certain dimensions of health and stability compared to heterosexual relationships, there is no question that homosexual partnerships do not have the intrinsic capacities for reproduction of male-female pairings. The typical homosexual relationship differs in certain ways from the average heterosexual relationship.
   
   
5. Although some individuals ground their identity in their sexual orientation, there are insufficient resources within the social sciences to determine the legitimacy of this reality.
   
   
6. Our culture is polarized between those relentlessly advancing the full acceptance and normalization of all things homosexual, indeed of all sexual variations, and those resisting those moves in the name of traditional values.
   
   
7. We know much more now than we did 10 and 30 years ago about the emotional well-being of homosexual persons, the complicated interaction of nature and nurture in the causation of sexual orientation. The contributions of science to this complicated area, however, remain sketchy, limited and puzzling. It is remarkable how little scientific humility is in evidence given the primitive nature of our knowledge.
   
   
8. The best ecclesiastical, professional, legal and social policy will not be founded on falsehoods or on grotesque and indefensible simplifications, but on a clearheaded grasp of reality in all its complexities, as well as on a humble recognition of all that we do not know.

[italics mine]

[StevieD]

Originally Posted by DexUK

I've read some of those 'facts'.

For the sake of Truth, I am compelled by my conscience to say that most if not all of them are absolute hogwash and the conclusions they draw are meaningless to the point of being sinfully untrue and calumnious, let alone potentially harmful to people who suffer SSA.

For instance: "Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%" - Archives of Sexual Behavior (No. 2, 1999)."

So what?

I might as well say that the prevalence of white fur on dogs is 75% and the prevalence of white fur on cats is 30% therefore white fur on cats mean that that cat is actually a dog.

Just because the incidence of homosexuality amongst pedophiles might be 40% tells us PRECISELY NOTHING about the incidence of pedophilia amongst homosexuals or any predisposition to it.


Another example: The journal AIDS [July 1993] reported that so-called "monogamous" relationships did not diminish the incidence of the unhealthy sexual acts commonplace among homosexuals. Quite the reverse. A 1991-92 English study published in the same issue of AIDS found that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.


And? So what? Between two healthy monogamous same-gender partners, it is not possible to contract HIV from 'unsafe' sexual practises. If they didn't have it to begin with, they aren't going to get it while remaining monogamous, regardless of the intrinsic morals of their behaviour.


And then theres: A 2009 University of California study published in the open access journal BMC Psychiatry, found that 48.5% of homosexual and bisexual individuals reported receiving psychiatric or drug abuse treatment in the past year as compared to 22.5% of heterosexuals.

Well I don't believe this for a second reflects true life. For a start, it's an open-access journal about psychiatry. The survey was therefore from a self-selecting sample and becomes as a result statistically irrelevant.

From personal experience, although of course this would be statistically untested, I know and have known and have been called upon to be an informal counsellor by a number of homosexual people. Precisely TWO people, over 15 years, representing an order of magnitude less than '48%' have ever acknowledged needing anything so much as a prozac in their entire lives. None whatsoever have ever gone anywhere near illegal drugs, let alone needed treatment.

I could go on, but I won't, because it is thoroughly depressing to do so and I think I've made my point.

I am at a loss to understand what your point is. Are you a statistician? Your personal experiences and opinions provide no useful information whatever in this matter. The studies quoted certainly are meaningful to anyone who takes the care to consider them.

[StevieD]

PS you interpret "steady relationships" as monogomous, unfortunately in the homosexual community this is rarely the case. I could go on.

[DexUK]

Originally Posted by StevieD

I am at a loss to understand what your point is. Are you a statistician? Your personal experiences and opinions provide no useful information whatever in this matter. The studies quoted certainly are meaningful to anyone who takes the care to consider them.

I did indeed take care to consider them and the studies quoted in the link I take issue with can be demolished with very little effort indeed. I have taken very great care to do that with one specific example in clear mathematical terms earlier on in this thread. To take them all, in turn, would occupy a load more space than anyone would bother reading, which is why I only took one major example. I also have a day job to attend to!

The study and processing of statistics and logic has been an intrinsic part of my career thus far and forms part of my formal qualifications as it happens. Any appreciation of the mathematics of the example I gave earlier needs only a basic high school level of math to understand though.

[DexUK]

Originally Posted by StevieD

PS you interpret "steady relationships" as monogomous, unfortunately in the homosexual community this is rarely the case. I could go on.

That may or may not be true. However, generalisations such as "all homosexual sexual activity that doesn't count as 'safer sex' will automatically lead to harm" is simply untrue. The reference is clearly in respect of homosexual partners not using condoms therefore the assumption is that they will contract HIV or other illnesses. Since HIV can ONLY be contracted by a person by sexual means if the other person is a carrier of it, logically if neither person is a carrier and neither of them is engaging in non-monogomous behaviour, the likelihood of contacting HIV is precisely nil.

The implicit assumption in that particular 'study's' conclusion is that gay people spread HIV. Well some of them clearly do. But then so do straight people. In fact there are far more straight people with HIV than gay people. And obviously the 'cure' such as it is, is to be chaste before marriage and only ever sleep with the person to whom you are married, and naturally the indulgence in fornication amongst heterosexuals AND homosexuals is a bad thing, but the studies quotes present 'facts' that are nothing of the sort. And when trying to win a moral argument, it really does help to speak the truth. One can't make truth from a lie, no matter how hard one tries.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by DexUK

That may or may not be true. However, generalisations such as "all homosexual sexual activity that doesn't count as 'safer sex' will automatically lead to harm" is simply untrue. The reference is clearly in respect of homosexual partners not using condoms therefore the assumption is that they will contract HIV or other illnesses. Since HIV can ONLY be contracted by a person by sexual means if the other person is a carrier of it, logically if neither person is a carrier and neither of them is engaging in non-monogomous behaviour, the likelihood of contacting HIV is precisely nil.

The implicit assumption in that particular 'study's' conclusion is that gay people spread HIV. Well some of them clearly do. But then so do straight people. In fact there are far more straight people with HIV than gay people. And obviously the 'cure' such as it is, is to be chaste before marriage and only ever sleep with the person to whom you are married, and naturally the indulgence in fornication amongst heterosexuals AND homosexuals is a bad thing, but the studies quotes present 'facts' that are nothing of the sort. And when trying to win a moral argument, it really does help to speak the truth. One can't make truth from a lie, no matter how hard one tries.

Have you read the study mentioned? I was unable to find it, but I'm looking on an iPod. As I pointed out before, what was said indicated some action undertaken in the context of a currently-monogamous relationship that was "more unhealthy" than occurred under other circumstances. I assumed this referred to actions unrelated to spreading AIDS or other STDs, actions which are "more unhealthy" for other reasons.

[djeter]

Originally Posted by DexUK

The implicit assumption in that particular 'study's' conclusion is that gay people spread HIV. Well some of them clearly do. But then so do straight people. In fact there are far more straight people with HIV than gay people. .

It's a complex situation as this 2010 CDC snapshot reveals; the fact that this small group of homosexual (what the study terms "MSM" Men having sex with men) cause 53 percent of new HIV infections is only part of the complexity. You can't take anything away from the larger numbers of heterosexual HIV infected population.

An interesting reaction (not mine):

No matter what your moral convictions are on homosexuality,
there is no excuse for the blatant lack of personal
responsibility shown by most. My alternate lifestyle is that
I am a gun nut. I realize that the life style that I love
could be very dangerous to me or others if not conducted
according to strict rules. If I were to stand on the town
square and fire random shots blindfolded I'd be put away for
years and never own a gun again. Many gays want to conduct
their sex lives in the same manner and have us not only
condone it, but pick up the bill.

dj

[DexUK]

Interestingly, Pope Benedict has said quite recently, in the case of a homosexual male protecting himself against infection by another, that condom use could be the first step towards good. While he doesn't out-and-out recommend it, it seems that the Pope's opinions on the subject are significantly more nuanced than many would believe.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010...emic-sexuality

[edwest2]

What Pope Benedict said was extensively commented upon in this forum at an earlier time. It was a step in the right direction, but disordered sex acts by gay and straight people are still disordered.

Here is an excellent article from the Catholic Answers library that deals with the Catholic/Biblical view and the scientific:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality





Peace,
Ed

[BobCatholic]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

For me, it is not inherited.
I only get convinced when I hear about the genes of it.

Well, we mapped the entire human genome, and for some odd reason did not find a "gay gene". Looks like that dog didn't hunt.

The only gay Gene lives with his boyfriend.

[essie7777]

Apoligies i'm going to slice your quote a little here to answer:

Originally Posted by mpartyka

Well, no, I'm not trying to call a "lack of morality" a disease...Snipped for slicing ...However, I would say that the fact that someone is aroused by someone of the same gender constitutes a disorder of some sort, even if it is not a disorder of the mind (i.e., a mental illness). People are not supposed to be sexually attracted to persons of the same gender any more than people are supposed to be attracted to prepubescent children. The deviation from the norm is what I would think constitutes a disorder.

Whilst saying it not a lack of maraility your then go on to explain the "disorder" as not fitting with the morality of the Catholic Church. Using the word 'disorder' in this context seems as though you are still trying to make it a "medical disease" but your basis is your own personal morality.

Does that make sense? In the Catholic Faith we believe that homosexual acts are morally wrong, that doesn't make it a disease though. I understand what you are trying to say but the basis of your judgement for this is not scientific so it is not a disease diagnoised and as i say it reads like you are replacing disease with disorder but giving it the same meaning... it does not change the facts though.

re placed from my slicing .. because I don't see homosexual arousal as a moral lapse any more that I see heterosexual arousal as a moral lapse. Sexual arousal is generally involuntary, so if a person finds that he/she is aroused by someone of the same gender, I don't automatically attribute that arousal to a moral failing because there was not necessarily any conscious choice at work.

I may be misunderstanding you as you say that arousal in any gender attraction is not immoral, then as above use arousal in homosexulaity to define itself as wrong based on moral justification because is same sex arousal.

It comes across as a little muddles. You'll have to explain further for it to be clearer.

Comparing pedophilia to homosexulaity is simply inappropriate. The act of pedophilia is against a child, against the law, has no comparision to consenting adult attraction/acts. Sorry i simply dont see a correlation between the two.

Question: According to the criteria by which the Hooker study disqualified homosexuality as being a mental illness, can pedophilia be similarly disqualified? If not, why not?[/quote]
Whilst i don't agree with this comparison at all...i will try and frame an answer for you.

Basically the Hooker study at its most simple, tested participants based on stringent controls and methods assesing behavior, potential pathology, lifestyle etc. These were examined and found to be indistinguishable as the tests of homosexula persons. They could have been the repsonses from a heterosexual. This is a very basic over simplification but the essense of the study.

There have been hundreds of empirical studies on pedophilia which have distinct pathology and diagnosisable behaviors specific to this group of people. In addition a criteria axis in the DSM includes overt acts of a sexual nature against children. This is clear empirical basis for diagnosis, as well as the obvious victims are raped, molested and their choice removed this is illegal as well as psychologically defined as a disease.

I do think that your are comparing apples and cars here there is no correlation between the two areas at all, their pathology, behavior etc. are as distinctly different as that between a heterosexual and a pedohile.

[essie7777]

Originally Posted by InSearchofGrace

The author likewise criticized gay and pro-gay activists in advancing false claims or "scientific facts" in forcing society to accept that homosexuality is normal.

My post was in response to the discussion up to that point of which posters were perpetuating the falsehoods cited so i wasn't ignoring anything simply following the coversation thread. so i am unsure why you are pointing this out.

At least this post of yours acknowledged the misgivings of the other side (LGBT community).

There's no 'at least' in this point-- it was relevent to the content of the thread when i posted -- again i'm not sure of your point here?

The original article by Stanton Jones is very long and covered much ground. Indeed it is interesting, especially the parts where he did not gloss over the errors of the American Psychological Association with its positions and reliance or use of flawed studies. He himself acknowledged the problem of sample representatives, the Achilles heel of research into the homosexual condition.

I agree, although his prasie and emulation of Hooker is distinct from this general conclusion as he so clearly stated.

To make general characterizations such as “homosexuals are as emotionally healthy as heterosexuals,” scientists must have sampled representative members of the broader group. Jones excused the issue on sampling because representative samples of homosexual persons are difficult to gather as homosexuality is a statistically uncommon phenomenon.

I am a little unsure why you are explaining this to me as i haven't advocated this position and it seems you are explaining why i shouldn't ... if i am misreading this i apologize but its certainly the way it comes across.

He said as much also in the shortened version of his essay here.

I prefer the full article as it cites better and gives the full discussion.

Jones also pointed to the gay advocacy the American Psychological Association has undertaken since the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the DSM by the organization of psychiatrists. I would lift all the parts of the article but it would make for a long post, but here are a few of his own words:

Again i am unsure what the point is here, why do you believe i need this pointed out to me, again i haven't advocated this position in any way at all?

[InSearchofGrace]

Originally Posted by DexUK

That may or may not be true. However, generalisations such as "all homosexual sexual activity that doesn't count as 'safer sex' will automatically lead to harm" is simply untrue. The reference is clearly in respect of homosexual partners not using condoms therefore the assumption is that they will contract HIV or other illnesses. Since HIV can ONLY be contracted by a person by sexual means if the other person is a carrier of it, logically if neither person is a carrier and neither of them is engaging in non-monogomous behaviour, the likelihood of contacting HIV is precisely nil.

The implicit assumption in that particular 'study's' conclusion is that gay people spread HIV. Well some of them clearly do. But then so do straight people. In fact there are far more straight people with HIV than gay people. And obviously the 'cure' such as it is, is to be chaste before marriage and only ever sleep with the person to whom you are married, and naturally the indulgence in fornication amongst heterosexuals AND homosexuals is a bad thing, but the studies quotes present 'facts' that are nothing of the sort. And when trying to win a moral argument, it really does help to speak the truth. One can't make truth from a lie, no matter how hard one tries.

That may be in Haiti, but not in the U.S., as this CDC fact sheet shows.

Indeed, it helps to speak the truth. Setting aside the implicit assumption that you read in that particular 'study's' conclusion, the spread of AIDS / HIV did start in the gay population before the spread to heterosexuals, which the CDC predicted in 1983. A pictorial timeline of the HIV/AID pandemic here.

[essie7777]

Originally Posted by InSearchofGrace

The important message of the article is in the conclusions the author reached, condensed below:

Although i am not sure why you are directing these conclusions at my post, i however do notice that in condensing there may be some parts of the quotes from the article which are missing.

While i understand condensing for space this is an important issue and discussion and the fuller picture is critical of all concerned sides in the debate so i don;t think we need to edit them down to the point context is lost. The pink is what i would add that you left out for a fuller picture of the article's full conclusions.

[list=1]
[*]Public opinion and social policy developments today are being driven by assumptions that cannot stand under rigorous examination. Some of these beliefs are unhelpful simplifications, some simply go beyond what we reliably know, and others are demonstrably false.

[*]The evidence suggesting Increased risk for psychological distress and physical health complications of various sorts is associated with being gay or lesbian does not validate construal of homosexuality as a mental illness; further, this increased risk may legitimately be attributed to some degree to abusive or even violent treatment by those who disapprove of their choices; however, we cannot eliminate the possibility that this elevated distress is to some degree or partially an entailment of living life contrary to the normative grain of our gendered sexuality.

[*]The etiology of homosexuality is mysterious; on average it certainly involves some biological contributors and it certainly involves some socio-cultural contributors, but how these factors contribute in the formation of individual sexual orientations is mysterious, as is the role of childhood, adolescent, and adult choices made, consciously or unconsciously, that contribute to the solidification of orientation. There is sufficient evidence, however, to know thatSexual orientation is quite dis-analogous to race.

[*]Homosexuality is not immutable, but there is little basis to believe that every individual homosexual person can reorient to heterosexuality., and have many reasons to believe that a process of change is demanding and uncertain.(i think this addition completes the sentence)

[*]Just as we know from the research of Evelyn Hooker and others that some homosexual persons are just as psychologically strong and resilient as some heterosexuals, so also we know that some homosexual relationships can be admirable in many ways, and remarkably equivalent on certain important dimensions of health and stability compared to heterosexual relationships. But we also know withoutquestion that homosexual partnerships do not have the intrinsic capacities for reproduction of male-female pairings, and have good reason to believe that the typical homosexual relationship differs in certain ways from the average heterosexual relationship.

I think this point was condensed to the point that the full meaning was taken out in your summary

[*]Although some individuals ground their identity in their sexual orientation, there are insufficient resources within the social sciences to determine the legitimacy of this reality.

LIST]

CONT NEXT POST
[italics mine]

[essie7777]

Originally Posted by InSearchofGrace

...

[LIST 1]
[*]Our culture is polarized between those relentlessly advancing the full acceptance and normalization of all things homosexual, indeed of all sexual variations, and those resisting those moves in the name of traditional values.There are, of course, many bewildered individuals poised between the polarities, uncertain what the issues are but moved by compassion in response to stories of the sufferings of GLB persons but often equally moved – perhaps by deeply rooted instinct, perhaps by nostalgia –by a deep fear of change.


[*]As moral and religious traditionalists face this profound polarization, it is important that we confess our own culpability in creating the mess we are in. We were complicit, even if ignorantly and passively so, in the cultural embrace of the disease conceptualization of homosexuality.We offloaded responsibility for the articulation of a thoughtful, caring, theologically rich and pastorally sensitive understanding of sexual brokenness onto the disease conceptualization, and thus were unprepared for the vacuum created by its timely demise. We have failed to articulate thoughtful understandings of human sexuality in light of evolving scientific findings and cultural developments. Perhaps most importantly, we failed and continue to fail to engage individuals who embrace homosexual identity with compassion, understanding, and love, and to seek to defend them against unjust discrimination and violence.

[*]We know much more now than we did 10 and 30 years ago about the emotional well-being of homosexual persons, the complicated interaction of nature and nurture in the causation of sexual orientation., of the complicated, limited, and difficult possibilities of sexual orientation malleability, of the functional and descriptive characteristics manifest in same-sex partnerships and of the contours of the psychological identities of homosexual persons. The contributions of science to this complicated area, however, remain sketchy, limited and puzzling. It is remarkable how little scientific humility is in evidence given the primitive nature of our knowledge.

[*]Perhaps if our culture can recognize the fluid and incomplete nature of our knowledge of the homosexual condition, if we can recognize the limits of reason, we may be able to create a public space where differing parties agree to disagree and give each other room to live in civility.The best ecclesiastical, professional, legal and social policy will not be founded on falsehoods or on grotesque and indefensible simplifications, but on a clearheaded grasp of reality in all its complexities, as well as on a humble recognition of all that we do not know.[/list]