Homosexuality

[razovor]

I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.

I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 157 by keithprosser3]

Elephants are a great example for homosexuality as well. Given the fact that most males live outside the herd emotional sexual relationships are formed with same sex partners since hetero encounters are always brief in nature

Elephants[edit]

Further information: Elephant#Mating

African and Asian males will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting. Such encounters are often associated with affectionate interactions, such as kissing, trunk intertwining, and placing trunks in each other's mouths. Male elephants, who often live apart from the general herd, often form "companionships", consisting of an older individual and one or sometimes two younger, attendant males with sexual behavior being an important part of the social dynamic. Unlike heterosexual relations, which are always of a fleeting nature, the relationships between males may last for years. The encounters are analogous to heterosexual bouts, one male often extending his trunk along the other's back and pushing forward with his tusks to signify his intention to mount. Same-sex relations are common and frequent in both sexes, with Asiatic elephants in captivity devoting roughly 45% of sexual encounters to same-sex activity

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 155 by Wissing]

It's a multidisciplinary approach Biology, Psychology, Genetics, and Neuroscience.

[keithprosser3]

Elephants are a great example for homosexuality as well.

As are of course, humans. An explicit video of homo-eroticism amongst female members the genus hom. sap. can be found here.

[Wissing]

Interesting video, Darias. So, if there is such thing as a gay gene, it very well could have been caused by a decision the parents made. And perhaps genes aren't completely set in stone, after all.

So far, I've seen just as much evidence on both sides of the issue regarding the biology discussion. If anything, the evidence for a gay gene could be summarized by Balthazart's concluding statement:

More interdisciplinary research is needed to better understand this fascinating aspect of human behavior.

It seems to me that this much is true: there are a lot of uncontrollable factors that go into sexuality. For all practical purposes, individuals do not choose their own sexuality. Perhaps genes play a role, but the question is "how much, and is it enough to matter?". In answering whether the extent of the role played by genetics is even relevant, let's look at how we might use such information:

I would like to revisit the issue of "conversion therapy" in light of the idea that gay is not a choice. The question is, if it's not a choice, how can you overcome it (many Christians do believe that homosexuality is in fact bad for the family structure of society, and that, regardless of whether it's a choice, it is something to be overcome)? Is it harmful to an individual to try to change? Some have presented information that it causes people to commit suicide (see the Psychology Wiki on Reparative Therapy below). It seems like there are a few different forms of reparative, or conversion, therapy... some are:

behavior modification, aversion therapy, psychoanalysis, prayer, and religious counseling

(Psychology Wiki on Reparative therapy)
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Reparative_therapy

which are highly discouraged; however,

Gerald Koocher, the president of the American Psychological Association, has stated that "the APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction."

Notably, the person who coined the term "reparative therapy" did not mean any of these methods. Instead, she was referring to the following:

proponents of modern reparative therapy work to build male-to-male bonds without an element of sexuality

(Psychology Wiki on Elizabeth Moberly)
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Elizabeth_Moberly

This sort of "therapy" is nothing more than a positive loving relationship. There's no sexual aspect to it, no brainwashing, no mind games... basically, her theory is that a major cause (maybe not an exclusive one) of homosexuality in males is a lack of a strong bond to a male figure, that creates a repressed desire for male love... one that, unsatisfied, is misinterpreted as a need for sex.

Moberly writes an article in which she questions the motives of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in its decision to change the classification of homosexuality in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. She also questions the work of Dr. Simon LeVay (who happens to be one of Balthazart's references in the article above). She repeatedly makes the point that very much of what we call "science" is actually politically influenced in ways no one can predict. If a scientist is "rooting" for a particular side, there's a conflict of interest. Even the best-intentioned scientist may be unconsiously biased because of the political fray surrounding this issue. Her critique of LeVay is exemplified here:

LeVay's conclusions are far from substantiated. The fundamental criticism is of LeVay's methodology in classifying his dead subjects, for, as Satinover rightly points out, cadavers cannot be interrogated about their prior sexual activity.

Moberly's sources come from these books:
Strangers and Friends. By Michael Vasey. Hodder & Stoughton (London). 276 pp. No U.S. price available.
Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. By Jeffrey Satinover. Baker. 281 pp. $17.99 paper.
The Truth About Homosexuality. By John F. Harvey, OSFS. Ignatius. 368 pp. $17.95 paper.
Straight and Narrow? By Thomas E. Schmidt. InterVarsity. 240 pp. $10.99 paper.
Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. By Charles W. Socarides. Adam Margrave. 321 pp. $27.
Unwanted Harvest? By Mona Riley and Brad Sargent. Broadman & Holman. 209 pp. $12.99 paper.
Craving for Love. By Briar Whitehead. Monarch. 320 pp. Out of Print.

Moberly's credibility has faced remarkably little criticism that I can find. Especially when you consider that many Christians/groups (NARTH, Paul Cameron) have faced a whopping ton of scrutiny. The fact that this particular author has faced so little is remarkable. One source that attempts to discredit Moberly is as follows:

ReligiousTolerance.org critiques Elizabeth Moberly:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exodb.htm#

That site also offers this article:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus.htm

And credits some rather bizarre sources:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41421 ... ce-so-what
(reference to a comment posting by somebody named Ned Flaherty)
DEAD LINK: http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boa ... basis.html
("The biological basis of homosexuality," 1997-DEC, by someone named Sylvia)
5.Matt Ridley, "Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human," HarperCollins, (2003)
(regarding the human genome, and the complex interplay between nurture and nature).

So, despite the fact that Moberly openly criticizes many studies, there's little viable rebuttal to her claims.

After reading this, I'm thinking that perhaps some methods of reparative therapy are viable, while others aren't. The video above about Epigenetics would suggest that the human genetic code can be affected by decisions we make. I worry that, in our quest for tolerance, we are actively promoting a practice we don't fully understand, rather than merely accepting people. In doing so, we may actually be unknowingly converting future generations away from heterosexuality.

[Goat]

I would like to revisit the issue of "conversion therapy" in light of the idea that gay is not a choice. The question is, if it's not a choice, how can you overcome it (many Christians do believe that homosexuality is in fact bad for the family structure of society, and that, regardless of whether it's a choice, it is something to be overcome)? Is it harmful to an individual to try to change? Some have presented information that it causes people to commit suicide .

One of my friends is gay, and when she was in her teens, her fundamentalist parents sent her to a camp for that therapy (that was about 16 years ago now).

There were 13 people (including her), in the camp. In the 16 or so years since they were there, there were 5 deaths in those 13 people due to overdosing of drugs, and 2 suicides. That is more than a 50% death rate.

Now, when it comes to that video, boy oh boy, it has a lot of misinformation in it. Some it right, but it's going a lot more speculative than is needed or feasible.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 161 by Wissing]

Good work keep in mind Elizabeth Moberly's position's may be valid there is virtually no data to support her hypothesis. Which would be my main concern, as you mentioned

Balthazart's concluding statement:

Quote:

More interdisciplinary research is needed to better understand this fascinating aspect of human behavior

While she could be right is it the only determining factor I would think not. Consider this:

Nearly 2 in 3 (64%) African American children live in father-absent homes

yet only 1 in 25 are gay

Gallup earlier this week, 4.6 percent of African Americans responded "yes" when asked if they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender

not enough correlations to be suspicious of that factor.

Moving back to conversion therapy the leading ex-gay foundation closed it's doors and had this to say.

For the better part of 10 years, I was an advocate and spokesman for what’s known as the 'ex-gay movement,' where we declared that sexual orientation could be changed through a close-knit relationship with God, intensive therapy and strong determination," Paulk said. "At the time, I truly believed that it would happen. And while many things in my life did change as a Christian, my sexual orientation did not."

He added: "Today, I do not consider myself 'ex-gay,' and I no longer support or promote the movement. Please allow me to be clear: I do not believe that reparative therapy changes sexual orientation; in fact, it does great harm to many people."

John Paulk, former chairman of Exodus

United States Surgeon General David Satcher in 2001 issued a report stating that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed".

Sexual orientation reparative treatment has been tried for over 40 years

Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder found in "Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumer's Report", a peer-reviewed study of 202 respondents[101] published in 2002, that 88% of participants failed to achieve a sustained change in their sexual behavior and 3% reported changing their orientation to heterosexual. The remainder reported either losing all sexual drive or attempting to remain celibate, with no change in attraction. Some of the participants who failed felt a sense of shame and had gone through conversion therapy programs for many years. Others who failed believed that therapy was worthwhile and valuable. Shidlo and Schroeder also reported that many respondents were harmed by the attempt to change, causing; depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, hypervigilance of gender-deviant mannerisms,social isolation, fear of being a child abuser and poor self-esteem. Of the 8 respondents (out of a sample of 202) who reported a change in sexual orientation, 7 worked as ex-gay counselors or group leaders

at best your looking at a 12% success rate which falls well within the range of a placebo effect. This also views sexual orientation in a strict paradigm of straight and gay which is faulty at best.
Yes I would agree standards and practices have some political motivation and we should be skeptical. We should also consider criticism are also fueled by ideology as well. The data simply doesn't support reparative or conversion therapy.

Consider this if you got a 20% success rate over a 10 year period yet the 80% who failed suffered from asexuality depression suicide etc. is it worth it? The harm far outweighs the good.

I worry that, in our quest for tolerance, we are actively promoting a practice we don't fully understand, rather than merely accepting people. In doing so, we may actually be unknowingly converting future generations away from heterosexuality

.

I think this is the crux though.

A.) Is tolerance promotion? I think not the law IMHO should be neutral on the matter as a conservative, I value free will and view the government as a handcuff if you will. Limiting the role of government to services provided to a society such as defense, Education, and essential services such as roads utilities etc. is important. It should have no say on our sexuality positive or negative.

Throughout history homosexuality has been about 10% regardless of culture. Bigger causes for shift in sexuality with regards to environment seems to stem from gender ratios.

China is a great example of this by promoting male births to reduce their population over time this saw a shift from more females to more males consequently the rate of homosexuality increased among males. Despite heavily discouraging homosexuality with state support i.e. criminalization.

Again as I pointed out before in order to have a reason to shift from a neutral state position on a moral matter one must provide evidence for a shift. Currently we are in a discriminatory position with regards to homosexuality what if any evidence can you provide to maintain the status quo?

[Darias]

After reading this, I'm thinking that perhaps some methods of reparative therapy are viable, while others aren't.

Moberly is a theologian. Her expertise is not in biology or neuroscience. I would take her opinions on biology with a grain of salt. Not only that but her book and her studies indicate a strong religious bias that is likely inclined to condemn homosexual behavior as sinful.

The source you provided made a very critical point, which is probably why no one takes her seriously enough to rebut her claims:

She has done no clinical work to support the validity of her theory or the effectiveness of her therapeutic technique. She is a theologian, not a trained mental health professional.

Besides, associating same sex arousal with pain is brutal and society should not pressure people to do that, anymore than it should pressure girls to get plastic surgery.

And all that aside, telling people their feelings of homoerotic arousal are "unnatural" is unethical when the overwhelming consensus of data shows otherwise.

[center][yt]UAhb4mQ6Pj0[/yt][/center]

The video above about Epigenetics would suggest that the human genetic code can be affected by decisions we make.

There are various theories explaining homosexuality, including everything from genetics, epigenetics, prenatal hormones, childhood trauma. Right now the scientific consensus points to hormones as the primary cause. However there are studies that indicate epigenetic factors at play. Ultimately it could be a combination of a lot of things. Here's a thought. My bisexuality might be due to completely different factors than someone who was born without enough testosterone.

I worry that, in our quest for tolerance, we are actively promoting a practice we don't fully understand, rather than merely accepting people. In doing so, we may actually be unknowingly converting future generations away from heterosexuality.

Tolerance. What tolerance? The vast majority of human beings have a visceral impulse to assault anyone who they discover to be gay, even tolerant allies of the gay community may feel a sickening repulse if approached romantically by the same sex. (I remember feeling the same way when I was younger, but I was a Christian then). When this impulse is attached to religious doctrine, and the power of a state -- you get Uganda. You get German death camps. You get suicidal and bullied LGBT youth.

Human beings have been around for a long time and there have been many ancient cultures that tolerated and encouraged same sex activity, but the fact still remains that the overwhelming majority of the population is straight... over 90% worldwide. Most cultures promote heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships -- not just tolerating individuals who are different.

The idea that a culture which merely tolerates the existence of homosexuals would mean a future human race where everyone (or a majority) is gay and no one has children is patently absurd.

First, gay men and women are fertile and there are many ways to conceive thanks to modern medicine. Gay couples tend to want to be able to adopt more than straight couples and because they want to have children, they are better prepared to on average than straight couples.

Secondly straight couples will always have the advantage over gay couples around the world because they will always be able to produce children more easily.

Straight families are largely responsible for bearing gay children. And even in an environment where homosexuality is taught as a perversion -- you still get Ted Haggards.

[Wissing]

Quick fact check - Daniel, you said that throughout history, homosexuality has been at 10%. Earlier, Darias posted a link
(http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... ion/62248/)
that says it's actually at 3.5% right now in the US. Care to post a link to the 10% number?

You also mentioned "Is tolerance promotion? ... the law IMHO should be neutral...". I'm not really concerned with law when I ask if tolerance is promotion.
It just seems to me, so far, that the evidence is wanting, that the verdict is not out yet, and the issue is not clearly one sided. There is bias
on both sides. People don't tolerate opposing opinion on this topic; instead, opinions are assumed to be fact. I've presented plenty of evidence...
you dispute it, and provide your own. I see this going back and forth forever. If people are trying to maintain neutrality, they don't act like it.

Darias, Goat has disputed your video. Goat, do you think that epigenetics itself is misinformation, or that just the video is misinformation?

The arguments above oppose 'reparative therapy' mostly on the grounds that it causes harm. However, I made the point that I'm not talking about *all*
types of reparative therapy. Certainly, there are always wrong ways to go about something. I pointed out that the type of therapy presented
by Moberly seems rather harmless, and has not been shown to cause harm. Shall we say that male bonding is psychologically harmful? That's all
she means by reparative therapy.

Darias, the source I provided did make several critical points against Moberly. However, if you read the psychology wiki, you'll find information
on Moberly that speaks to the contrary.

Elizabeth Moberly is a British research psychologist and a theologian whose Christian ideas inform her views on homosexuality. During the early 1980s Moberly coined the term "reparative therapy."

The reason I provided that source was to show that ReligiousTolerance.org does not have very good
sources for their information. Dead links, a comment by some guy named Ned posting on blogs... silly.

Also to Darias,

The vast majority of human beings have a visceral impulse to assault anyone who they discover to be gay

I have met maybe a handful of people in my life who dared even speak against it, much less assault anybody. I myself fear social exclusion should I even question whether homosexuality might be harmful.

So I will move on the issue: I will not go on the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, as that would require redefining "choice" from its normal meaning. Same reason I no longer use the term "inerrant" about the Bible... it changes the meaning of the word.

However, it is very possible still, in my mind, after now 2 books and several articles by both sides, that it could be harmful in some unforseen way.

What would really be interesting is some raw data. Maybe like, an excel spreadsheet with nothing but numbers. Anyone know of where I might find something like that?

[Goat]

Quick fact check - Daniel, you said that throughout history, homosexuality has been at 10%. Earlier, Darias posted a link
(http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... ion/62248/)
that says it's actually at 3.5% right now in the US. Care to post a link to the 10% number?

You also mentioned "Is tolerance promotion? ... the law IMHO should be neutral...". I'm not really concerned with law when I ask if tolerance is promotion.
It just seems to me, so far, that the evidence is wanting, that the verdict is not out yet, and the issue is not clearly one sided. There is bias
on both sides. People don't tolerate opposing opinion on this topic; instead, opinions are assumed to be fact. I've presented plenty of evidence...
you dispute it, and provide your own. I see this going back and forth forever. If people are trying to maintain neutrality, they don't act like it.

Darias, Goat has disputed your video. Goat, do you think that epigenetics itself is misinformation, or that just the video is misinformation?

The arguments above oppose 'reparative therapy' mostly on the grounds that it causes harm. However, I made the point that I'm not talking about *all*
types of reparative therapy. Certainly, there are always wrong ways to go about something. I pointed out that the type of therapy presented
by Moberly seems rather harmless, and has not been shown to cause harm. Shall we say that male bonding is psychologically harmful? That's all
she means by reparative therapy.

Darias, the source I provided did make several critical points against Moberly. However, if you read the psychology wiki, you'll find information
on Moberly that speaks to the contrary.

Elizabeth Moberly is a British research psychologist and a theologian whose Christian ideas inform her views on homosexuality. During the early 1980s Moberly coined the term "reparative therapy."

The reason I provided that source was to show that ReligiousTolerance.org does not have very good
sources for their information. Dead links, a comment by some guy named Ned posting on blogs... silly.

Also to Darias,

The vast majority of human beings have a visceral impulse to assault anyone who they discover to be gay

I have met maybe a handful of people in my life who dared even speak against it, much less assault anybody. I myself fear social exclusion should I even question whether homosexuality might be harmful.

So I will move on the issue: I will not go on the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, as that would require redefining "choice" from its normal meaning. Same reason I no longer use the term "inerrant" about the Bible... it changes the meaning of the word.

However, it is very possible still, in my mind, after now 2 books and several articles by both sides, that it could be harmful in some unforseen way.

What would really be interesting is some raw data. Maybe like, an excel spreadsheet with nothing but numbers. Anyone know of where I might find something like that?

Epigenteics is not itself incorrect. The video was at a 90,000 height level, and some of the details were exaggerated. The examples with the twins was highly inaccurate, based on studies by twins.. the life style choices that would be made are highly influenced by genetics, so even twins who grew up in separate environments would make very similar choices. .. so that was unrealistic. It was, however, to try to make a point.

Epigenetics would be due to exposure to chemicals in the environment. How much of 'lifestyle' choices gets passed down to the next generation is an unknown. That's a matter of study right now. The video exaggerated what is known, and gave unrealistic examples.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 165 by Wissing]


One poll an average does not make. Also keep in mind the rate fluctuates over time. Also most modern polls are typically underreported because we live in a culture that oppresses LGBT individuals so you have a portion of respondents whom have had same sex feelings/urges/experiences whom fail to report.

listed below are polls from various cities ranging from 5-15% This is also merely a snapshot of the current rate. I guarantee edo era Japan much of Ancient Greece and Rome had much higher rates. Also various South American tribes have high rates of bisexual and same sex encounters

Brazil[edit]

In 2009, in a survey conducted by University of São Paulo in 10 capitals of Brazil, of the men 7.8% were gay and 2.6% were bisexual, for a total of 10.4%, and of the women 4.9% were lesbian and 1.4% were bisexual, for a total of 6.3%.[23]

Of the men of the city of Rio de Janeiro, 14.3% were gay or bisexual. Of the women of the city of Manaus, 10.2% were lesbian and bisexual.[23]


Rank

City

Percentage
of city
population

GLB Population


rank

1 Rio de Janeiro 14.30% 1
2 Fortaleza 9.35% 2
3 Manaus 8.35% 3
4 São Paulo 8.20% 4
5 Salvador 8.05% 5
6 Brasília 7.95% 6
7 Belo Horizonte 6.85% 7
8 Curitiba 6.55% 8
9 Porto Alegre 5.95% 9
10 Cuiabá 5.65% 10

United States[edit]

rank

1 San Francisco 15.4% 94,234 4
2 Seattle 12.9% 57,993 9
3 Atlanta 12.8% 39,805 12
4 Minneapolis 12.5% 34,295 16
5 Boston 12.3% 50,540 10
6 Sacramento 9.8% 32,108 20
7 Portland 8.8% 35,413 14
8 Denver 8.2% 33,698 17
9 Washington 8.1% 32,599 18
10 Orlando 7.7% 12,508 36

Top Ranked by Total Population:


Rank

City

Percentage
of city
population

GLB Population


population

rank

1 New York City 6% 272,493 1
2 Los Angeles 5.6% 154,270 2
3 Chicago 5.7% 114,449 3
4 San Francisco 15.4% 94,234 4
5 Phoenix 6.4% 63,222 5
6 Houston 4.4% 61,976 6
7 San Diego 6.8% 61,945 7
8 Dallas 7.0% 58,473 8
9 Seattle 12.9% 57,993 9
10 Boston 12.3% 50,540 10
11 Philadelphia 4.2% 43,320 11
12 Atlanta 12.8% 39,085 12
13 San Jose 5.8% 37,260 13

politics aside I tolerate religion does this mean I promote religion I think not.
Toleration does not equal promotion in any sense of the word.

and the issue is not clearly one sided. There is bias

What exactly is the issue?

List to me how toleration of LGBT Individuals is a problem.

lets deal with it in this manner

1. List potential problems with toleration of LGBT individuals
2. We address each issue line by line.

I can list tons of issues with non-tolerance, but lets start with your list first.