Question for Christians

SpeakerEnder

Active Member
Jul 26, 2004
63
11
38
Mesa, AZ
✟239.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Republican
What does exist is a large and growing body of scientific evidence that shows that sexual orientation is an inborn and immutable trait.

Correction: What does exist is a growing number of poorly conducted extremely biased studies that are performed by gay advocates themselves. There is far more evidence, and logic, to suggest that homosexuality is a result of environmental factors then there is of genetic factors.


If you know of study showing that sexual orientation is the result of some psychological, sociological, familial characteristic…then please link the rest of us to it.
"Current evidence suggests that environmental, familial, and personal influences contribute significantly to the development of homosexual tendencies. Seventy years of therapeutic counseling and case studies show a remarkable consistency concerning the origins of the homosexual impulse as an uncompleted gender identity seeking after its own sex to replace what was not fully developed in childhood." (NARTH.com)



"Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to quantitate mixture of some genetic factors, intrauterine influences-postnatal environment (such as parents, siblings, and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development." (Jeffrey Satinover, "The Gay Gene?" The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1966)



Is there a genetic makeup that would support a predisposition for others to be homosexual? Quite likely. But the likelyhood of this being the sole factor is absurd.



unfortunately these cannot be found.



Dr. Robert Spitzer wished to study individuals who claim to have changed their sexual orientation. He couldn’t find any. So he went to the organizations that claim that they facilitate such changes in sexual orientation he asked NARTH and Exodus and several other such organizations for help. Ex-gay groups regularly claim to know of 'thousands' of people who have 'changed' or 'left homosexuality.' But after searching for nearly a year and a half, Spitzer could only find 274 possibilities. Dr. Robert Spitzer finally studied 143 "ex-gays" and 57 "ex-lesbians" who had reported that they had become "straight." Of the 200 individuals who the ex-gay groups claim to no longer be homosexual 172 of the individuals state they still are homosexual. In the end Spitzer was able to find only 11 of the 200 individuals who claim to have changed form being completely homosexual to completely heterosexual. It is important to note that of the eleven who were “completely homosexual” nine were engaged in heterosexual relationships prior to entering reparative therapy to change their sexual orientation and that all eleven work for the organizations that claim sexual orientation can be changed.

Perhaps he should look a little harder. You are speeking to one, for instance. Heck, there are hundreds (At least) of us. To find many who exist, as well as those they are currently supporting, please go here: http://www.livehope.org/



The most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion' therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.'
Your argument is misleading, in that it leaves out several important pieces of information. First and foremost is that the APA decision did not directly reflect the views of American psychiatrists by the landslide that you suggest. In actuality, it was about as close as the Bush/Kerry race. A survey conducted by the journal Medical Aspects of Homosexuality in 1979 asked 10,000 psychiatrists if they felt that homosexuality "usually represented a pathological adaptation." 69% of the respondants said "Yes," and 60% said homosexual men were less capable of "mature, loving relationships."

Furthermore, your direct quote: have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.'

This is far from what happened. The APA did not suggest any such thing. In fact, when speaking of the mental disorders that should be ommitted/included in the DSM, one of the stipulations for homosexuality to be excluded was only if homosexuals felt no "subjective distress" about their sexuality and experienced no "impairment in social effectiveness or functioning." The psychiatrist who authored the resolution in the first place plainly stated that the APA was not suggesting that homosexuality is normal.

There is far more to the history of this issue, should you like to continue discussing it. However, please read up on the entirety of how it came about, and what exactly it entails before making claims.
 
Upvote 0

SpeakerEnder

Active Member
Jul 26, 2004
63
11
38
Mesa, AZ
✟239.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Republican
livehope.org does not have to be unbiased, thank you very much. The purpose of me placing it on the boards was so that our good friend Volos could find the missing ex-homosexuals of his. Unfortunately, some researchers don't look to deep. God forbid those darn ex-homosexuals grouping together to form a support group for others on the same path...

Now, as far as the Narth site is concerned, that is no less and no more biased then many of the studies used to support genetic predisposition of homosexuality.
 
Upvote 0

John832

Active Member
Dec 27, 2004
59
2
✟190.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Volos said:
Then why are you complaining about the fact that I “seem to deny any research even exists that you don't deem reputable”?

Simply because you imply that the research has little value unless the delivered results show substantive evidence of the claim. The Kallman twin study in the 50s seemed quite conclusive for a biological determinant. However, to my knowledge, no twin study has come anywhere close to the Kallman results. Does this mean the Kallman study never had any value? It does to me because it shows me that its inability to be replicated makes it suspect. If a study is attempted and proves the hypothesis incorrect, it had value because it added a piece of information to the puzzle.

I brought up the Spitzer study because at the time I was writing it, I hadn’t seen you specifically address it and I knew it to be a controversial study. For those who obtain their information through NARTH, the Spitzer study is championed (as I am sure you are aware). I was playing the antagonist role mostly to hear your response.


If you wish to play that game I am more than willing to go along:

In post number 60 you made the following claims:

“It was implied in the purpose of the study.” Referring to the Spitzer study and your assertion that Spitzer supports the claim that sexual orientation is a choice. Your assertion is unsupported


I wasn’t making the assertion, Spitzer was. If I left the impression I was agreeing with Spitzer, I apologize for the confusion. I honestly had no personal feelings about the study but your response gave me plenty to ponder.

You can disagree with me but I still hold that the purpose of the study was to show that reparative therapy could effect change thereby showing that “choice” was involved. I realize the underlying basis of the study is based in a belief that homosexuality is a pathological problem which is why it is so offensive to some. Perhaps my use of the concept of “choice” is too broad here. I was really using choice in opposition to innate. If Spitzer believed the problem to be repairable, he certainly could not have been supporting that it was innate.

“If a person can choose to change their orientation through reparative therapy than the condition must, at least in part, contain choice.” Your claim is unsupported first in the lack of evidence of anyone changing even in the Spitzer study and second in the assertion that this in any way shows sexual orientation is in some forma a choice.

Once again, I wasn’t making the claim, Spitzer was. I was attempting to expound (by way of giving an example of the argument) on why I believed the Spitzer study to be about choice not trying to make a claim myself. I can understand why there would be confusion after re-reading the post. Perhaps this is bad communication on my part. In the future, I will be mindful that playing antagonist might likely lead to the assumption I am using it for support if I don’t explicitly state otherwise.

I am not sure I can agree that there is no evidence of people changing. For one, there are quite a few support groups for ex homosexuals. Their existence shows there is change (whether is it simply behavior or orientation is something I will have to take their word on). In addition, I personally know quite a few people that used to be exclusively homosexual that are now exclusively heterosexual. This is not scientific but it is curious to me that I happen to be experiencing an apparent anomaly. Schwartz and Masters suggested sustained changes in unwanted homosexual attraction (Schwartz, M. F. & Masters, W. H. (1984). The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, pp. 173-181). Kinsey’s studies showed significant shifts in sexual preference.

On a side not, the Kinsey study also brings up the interesting measure by which one determines ‘purely homosexual’ or ‘purely heterosexual’. If there is indeed any sort of continuum, how does the biological component work?

Again one must ask why I or any other thinking person must accept the validity of poorly designed studies?

I would never suggest you must accept the validity of any study. I simply asked that you see the value in studies in general, irregardless if their results show a conclusive, repeatable result. From my perspective, the more studies performed, whatever the results might be, paint a more complete picture. I, of course, would not expect anyone to accept unethical studies. I had not heard some of the issues you raised in post #44 regarding the Spitzer study. I clearly haven’t read as many criticisms of Spitzer as you have but I will certainly consider them.

My original reaction to your post was less regarding your overall position that there is biology involved and more to do with the denial of any studies attempting to show non-biological factors. There are quite a few studies, books, writings, theories; most of which are dismissed by those who support biological determination. I do not want to take on the responsibility of presenting the evidence because I don’t disagree with there being a biological component. Since I don’t want to present the evidence, perhaps you will not continue the dialogue (which is fine with me). I recently found this site and would prefer to use it for the purpose of posting opinion (it is not that I am unwilling to provide support, I just don’t want to work under “formal debate” constraints). Even after just a few days, it is obvious that many would prefer to use this forum as a venue to prove logic and reason are superior to faith and belief in biblical truth. Whether you share this opinion is unclear to me. I am sure many who differ in position to the moral imperatives fond in the bible (as understood by most conservative Christians) don’t care to have “our values” imposed on others. Perhaps that is one reason you want to be involved in a Christian forum site. I wish our beliefs, values and opinions were not imposed on others as well.

Does real evidence exist showing that sexual orientation is a choice? No. Pretending bad and falsified studies are evidence does not make them evidence.

Does real evidence exist showing that sexual orientation is only choice? I haven’t seen any. Does real evidence exist showing that sexual orientation is only biological? I haven’t seen any.

I am not a researcher in this field and am only marginally aware of the material on this subject but from what I have read, I tend to believe a mix of biological and non-biological factors exist. Quoting Dr. Joseph Wortis, “no complex high-level behaviour of the human species can be reduced to genetic endowment, not language, not house-building and not sexual behaviour”. I also see that those who have made significant steps to identify a biological component acknowledge that there are other factors involved. "We knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation" (Hamer, D & Copeland, P. (1994). The science of desire. New York: Simon and Schuster).

Whether the study was intended to make the claim, I would see the Bailey and Pillard twin study as demonstrating that there must be a non-biological component since identical twins only had a 52% chance of both having a homosexual orientation (I would expect numbers much closer to 100). In addition, the fact that fraternal twins were roughly twice as likely to have a homosexual orientation compared to other biological brothers suggests non-biological factors since fraternal twins would be just as genetically different as non twin biological brothers.

Homosexuality is not comparable to alcoholism for a variety of reasons. One may be homosexual without ever having sex, yet one cannot be an alcoholic without first consuming alcohol. Further there does exist a genetic predisposition to alcoholism (actually the genetic component is in the receptors of the pleasure centers of the brain) but one need not have these genetic traits to be an alcoholic and one may have this genetic predisposition, may consume alcohol and yet still not be an alcoholic.

Clearly, the more direct comparison is a biological component (genetic predisposition for alcoholism and sexual orientation for homosexuality) rather than the action that can occur because of that biology. One may have a genetic propensity towards a behavior but choose not to act on the behavior. One can have a biological basis for alcoholism but never respond to that biology. One need not have the biological component to engage in homosexual activity. I guess I should have been more explicit in my comparison (it is easier to refer to alcoholism than genetic predisposition to alcoholism just as it is easier to say homosexuality rather than homosexual orientation).

Thank you for this second personal attack.
I apologize for making you feel attacked. There is nothing personal because I do not know you. From what I have read, it is illogical to assume that only a biological component can exist (I have seen no evidence of this) yet you continually suggest that there can be no social component. Somehow, the burden of proof falls on me even though you are making the claim (namely social factors can’t exist). Perhaps non-existence is un-provable but there must be some logic to support the concept. I am not making a claim since I think ‘choice only’ is not supported by evidence or is rational based on personal observation, I think ‘biology only’ is not supported or rational so I am left with something other than those two. In my logic, that missing piece has to include non-biological factors. Is this measurable? I would think so. Are there studies doing it? Not really sure. In the absence of a definitive view of the biology (especially considering the number of studies involved trying to show it) I feel comfortable in assuming there are other non-biological components.


If someone would present a legitimate study linking sexual orientation to any social, psychological or familial then I would certainly accept such evidence. However no one has.
Honestly, I don’t know that I would take the time to find them because until you are able to present a conclusive study to show that only a biological component can exist than I see it as perfectly logical to assume other factors exist as well. In addition, are there any studies that conclusively show that a biological indicator implies causation (i.e. the implications of Breedlove’s altered brain study)? I am not claiming a ‘nurture only’ position and yet, it seems to me, you are claiming a ‘nature only’ position. Perhaps you could show me the logic in what I see as an apparent vacuum. If it is not ‘nature only’, what can it be other than social factors?


 
Upvote 0

hernyaccent

single black female addicted to retail
Dec 27, 2004
2,156
110
39
New York City
✟2,905.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
fluffy_rainbow said:
I don't know if I can put it more clearly and accurately than Bill did, but I shall try.

As Christians we follow the Word of God. If the Word of God says in both the Old and New testaments that homosexual practices are a sin then that is what we believe. We are all born with a sinful nature and free will. Sinful nature means that we have the propensity to commit a host of sins. Free will means we have that choice to give into those sinful desires. We can either choose to give in or we can strive to be holy.
The Old Testament also says that eatting shrimp and women wearing pants is a sin. Do you agree with that?
 
Upvote 0

SpeakerEnder

Active Member
Jul 26, 2004
63
11
38
Mesa, AZ
✟239.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Republican
Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.59 However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion's share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men,60 and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#23

Hmm... This might be an interesting read for anyone who wants to read up on STDs in the lesbian community. I am in the process of checking up on the citations right now. But there is the link to the articles, if anyone else is interested.

"15. Lesbians are more likely to be HIV positive than heterosexual women, not because HIV is transmitted by lesbian sexual activity, but because lesbians are more likely to have had sexual relations with HIV positive men or use IV drugs." (Myers, R., "The Talking Sex Project: Descriptions of the Study Population and Correlated of Sexual Practices at Baseline." Canadian Journal of Public Health. Jan./Feb. 1992.)
 
Upvote 0

SpeakerEnder

Active Member
Jul 26, 2004
63
11
38
Mesa, AZ
✟239.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Republican
The Old Testament also says that eatting shrimp and women wearing pants is a sin. Do you agree with that?
Perhaps you should go check out one of the hundred or so other threads that talks about what the Bible says about homosexuality. First of all, if you want to argue purely on OT grounds, then you should research the difference between the laws in the OT that are placed there for ritual purity, and those that are placed there for moral purity.

For instance, the ones you listed are meant for ritual purity. Now, let us take something else into consideration, in the surrounding verses(Lev. 18:20-23) it also says not to engage in inappropriate behavior with animals and adultery. Tell me, since rules of conduct on homosexuality should be discarded, then should we discard the idea that God calls inappropriate behavior with animals and adultery sinful?

Second of all, there are NT verses as well that are quite clearly stating homosexuality as sinful in nature. (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10)
 
Upvote 0

Subordinationist

Active Member
Nov 29, 2004
349
18
✟8,081.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
cthiax said:
There are millions of sexually active men and women who are infertile, and I'm sure most of them would be offended - amused, at best - at your suggestion that they are all non-sexual eunuchs.

These people are "sexually active", they are not sterile, they continue to have sexual desires, unlike the non-sexual eunuchs.

morningstar2651 said:

LOL, and Pandas are about to become extinct because...?



.
 
Upvote 0

hernyaccent

single black female addicted to retail
Dec 27, 2004
2,156
110
39
New York City
✟2,905.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
SpeakerEnder said:
Perhaps you should go check out one of the hundred or so other threads that talks about what the Bible says about homosexuality. First of all, if you want to argue purely on OT grounds, then you should research the difference between the laws in the OT that are placed there for ritual purity, and those that are placed there for moral purity.

For instance, the ones you listed are meant for ritual purity. Now, let us take something else into consideration, in the surrounding verses(Lev. 18:20-23) it also says not to engage in inappropriate behavior with animals and adultery. Tell me, since rules of conduct on homosexuality should be discarded, then should we discard the idea that God calls inappropriate behavior with animals and adultery sinful?

Second of all, there are NT verses as well that are quite clearly stating homosexuality as sinful in nature. (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10)
I am aware of what the Bible says about homosexuality. If I were Christian then perhaps I would believe these sins but I am not.

I don't understand why SOME Christian use the verse in the Old Testament to prove their point about homosexuality while they discredit other parts of the Old Testament as " OLD LAWS & RITUALS".

I can understand inappropriate behavior with animals being " deemed" a sin because there is no consent from the animal. All sexual's act should be done so with consent. I think adultery hurts the other individual in the marriage emotion,financial and in some places social. If you action is harming others then it should be considered a "sin" according to Christianity.


"Second of all, there are NT verses as well that are quite clearly stating homosexuality as sinful in nature. (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10)"

I am not disagreeing that the NT says that.

I am currently studying the translation of the bible and its translation from Greek to English seems to be somewhat twisted. I know a Christian will argues that it's God's Word so it's correct but for me personality the more I talk to certain Christians about these issues the more I denounce Christianity. Homosexuality harms no one directly according to christians except those that are involved.

Some will give the arguement that their children being exposed to homosexuality will make them see it as " normal". I think they fail to realize that to others christianity and it's views aren't "normal".

( my own experience)
My grandparents(who I was raised by) decided to send me to a christian school because they didn't want me exposed to the environment in our neighborhood but I still was exposed to in even in a christian environment. There were indivduals who were openly gay,bought inappropriate contento magazines and even guns to school. If you choose to be christian I think you should teach your children to handle exposure to these situations because they aren't going away or being brush under the rug and express your feelings against them. When they turn 18 they are going to make thier own choice as I did.





Can you show me where it says women not wearing pants is a ritual for purity? and the same for women also having their heads covered at all times?
 
Upvote 0

GMRELIC

Senior Member
Jan 30, 2004
935
105
61
texas
✟1,623.00
Faith
Christian
I for one can just not say that homosexuality is a choice, I am not a homosexual, nor have I ever been a homosexual so I can't even really form much of an opinion, because I have not walked thru thier shoes, what I do know is that I am a heterosexual, I did not choose to be a heterosexual, Itbjust comes natural to me, I just cannot ever imagine that I made a choice to be heterosexual, I liked girls when i was 3 years old.
In my opinion nobody can chose thier sexuality, It is who they are. also my best friends have twin daughters, one is a lesbian, the other is heterosexual, they were raised in the same enviroment, by the same parents, so I personally disreguard the enviroment thing alot of people claim that causes homosexuality. If I am wrong, then oh well, I am wrong God can deal with me when the time comes, I am not going to get on a soap box and scream homosexuals are doomed to hell, because I personally feel they didn't choose to be the way they are. I try to demonstrate love to all people. the way I feel God wants us to do, It is not in my nature to comdemn a group of people and try to belittle them and make them feel like second rate citizens
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ_Ghost
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Volos

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
3,236
171
57
Michign
✟4,244.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
SpeakerEnder said:
Correction: What does exist is a growing number of poorly conducted extremely biased studies that are performed by gay advocates themselves.
A blatant lie.

Psychologically, homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals. In 1957 with a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, Evelyn Hooker embarked on the first study to determine the relationship between homosexuality and psychopathology. She studied two groups, one comprised of thirty homosexuals and the other of thirty heterosexuals, and matched them for age, IQ, and education. None of the members of either group had ever undergone any psychiatric treatment. After having both groups complete three major psychological evaluations -- the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception (TAT), and Make-A-Picture-Story (MAPS) tests -- Hooker had experts in the three testing fields try to identify from the subjects’ results which subjects were homosexual. None of the experts was able to positively identify a subject as being either homosexual or heterosexual (UCD 6; Burr, Atlantic). As Edwin Shneidman, the psychologist asked to examine the results of the MAPS tests, noted, “I wish I could say that I see it all now, that this is the profile of a person with a homosexual orientation, but I can't see it at all”

Richard Schmiechen Changing Our Minds: The Story of Dr. Evelyn Hooker. Simon & Schuster 1995



As a result of Hooker’s study and others that corroborated her findings, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders in 1973; two years later, the American Psychological Association followed suit and declared that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. In fact, in July 1994, the American Psychological Association issued a statement concluding that “homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality.”

American Psychological Association. “Statement on Homosexuality.” n. pag. Online. Internet. 4 November 1997.
Available http://www.psych.org/public_info/HOMOSE~1.HTM.




In 1994 at the University of Western Ontario, J. A. Y. Hall and D. Kimura studied the fingerprint ridges of self-proclaimed and Kinsey scale-ranked1 heterosexuals and homosexuals. After the sixteenth week of pregnancy, fingerprints are known to be unchangeable, so if there were any significant fingerprint differences in the two groups, one could argue that sexual orientation may be determined before birth. In fact, Hall and Kimura did find that the difference between the number of ridges on the left hands of homosexual men was greater than that of heterosexuals. Citing that individuals with higher left-hand ridge counts perform differently on sexually dimorphic cognitive tasks than do those with higher right-hand ridge counts , the researchers concluded that there must be an “early biological contribution to adult sexual orientation”

Hall, J. A. Y. and D. Kimura, “Dermatoglyphic Asymmetry and Sexual Orientation in Men,” Behavioral Neuroscience 108 (1994): 1203-1206.



D. F. Swaab found that in homosexual males, the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus, in general, was twice as large as the SCN in heterosexual males. Although the hypothalamus indirectly governs a person’s sexual drive, the SCN is known not to have any part in regulating it.

Swaab, . F. A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Homosexuality. NATURE, 378: 68-70 (1995)





In 1991, Simon LeVay studied the brains of heterosexual and homosexual subjects that had died of AIDS. LeVay, however, first examined the hypothalamus of each subject without knowing the subject’s sexual orientation. Upon comparison between sexual orientation and hypothalamus size, he found that, on average, One of the four lobes of the anterior hypothalamus INAH 3 was two to three times larger in homosexual men; this suggested “that gay and straight men may differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that regulate sexual behavior. ... It is very likely that there are more numerous neurons in INAH 3 of gay men (and women) than in straight men. The Adovcate repoted LeVays research with an article titled “the Gay Brian, ours is bigger” Critics of LeVay’s study claim the detrimental effects of AIDS explain the difference in brain structure but have failed to explain why the hypothalamus of heterosexuals who died of HIV/AIDS would be affected by the virus differently than in homosexuals.



Simon LeVay (1991). A Difference in Hypothalmic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men. Science, vol. 253, pp. 1034-1037.

Simon LeVay & Dean H. Hamer (May 1994). Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality. Scientific American, vol. 270, pp. 44-49





In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard conducted an experiment comparing identical twins, fraternal twins, and nongenetically related adopted brothers. If homosexuality is genetically linked, the probability of both identical twins being gay should be higher than that of fraternal twins, which should be still higher than that of nongenetically-related brothers. Indeed, Bailey and Pillard found that both siblings were gay in fifty-two percent of identical twins, in twenty-two percent of fraternal twins, and in only five percent of nonrelated brothers.

Bailey, J. M., & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089-1096

In 1992, Bailey and Pillard followed-up their experiment on homosexual men by studying identical twin, fraternal twin, and nongenetically related adopted sisters. As expected, their results mirrored those found in their gay brother study. Whereas only six percent of adopted sisters were both lesbian, sixteen percent of fraternal twin sisters and forty-eight percent of identical twin sisters were both lesbian

Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Neale, M. C., & Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 217-223.



In 1993. Dean Hamer, examining the family trees of gay men, noticed a pattern of inheritance through the maternal side; Hamer found gay men to have more maternal relatives who were gay than paternal relatives.

Hamer collected a group of forty gay brothers and drew blood samples to examine their DNA. For thirty-three of the forty brothers, he discovered a remarkable concordance for five markers on a section of the X chromosome called Xq28, where concordance is defined to be the similarity between the markers. Statistical analysis showed that the probability of this concordance happening by sheer chance was less than one in 100,000. Upon repeating the study again, he obtained the same results. Admittedly, Hamer has not isolated a “gay gene,” but rather a region of over five million base pairs in which such a gene may exist.

Dean Hamer et al, "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation" Science 261 (1993-JUL-16): pp 321-27.







In 1990, researchers at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada examined the occurrence of left-handedness in heterosexuals and homosexuals. Brain organization in left-handed people is known to be slightly different than in right-handed people. For example, left-handed people tend to have their language area centered in the right hemisphere of their brain; it is generally accepted that the area for language is in the left hemisphere. Even though only thirty-five percent of the general population is totally left-handed, the scientists found that sixty-nine percent of homosexual women were left-handed and 61% of homosexual men were left handed. As a result, they suggested that homosexuals have a different brain organization than heterosexuals.

Witelson, S. Functional cerebral asymmetry in homosexual men and women. Behavioral Neuroscience, 1994, 108, 525-531





The auditory systems of homosexual women are different than those of heterosexual women. Tones produced in homosexual women's inner ears he studied were weaker in signal and less numerous than those of the heterosexual women studied. The structure of the inner ear competes its development at about the sixteenth week of gestation indicating that the differences displayed by the inner ears of lesbians were set about five months before birth.

Loehlin, J.C. and McFadden, D. (2003) Otoacoustic emissions, auditory evoked potentials, and traits related to sex and sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 115-127.







A California psychologist, Marc Breedlove, "conducted his research at three street fairs in the San FranciscoBay area in the fall of 1999." Each study participant had his or her hand photocopied on a portable copy machine to record finger length. Participants also filled out a questionnaire on sexual orientation and birth order. 720 volunteers participated. They found that lesbians tended to have shorter index fingers (relative to their ring fingers) than did heterosexual women. They also found that gay males tended to have shorter index fingers (relative to their ring fingers) than heterosexual males. The relative size of a person's fingers is determined well before birth. These findings imply that sexual orientation is at least partly decided before or during pregnancy -- perhaps at conception when a person's unique DNA is established.



In the mid 1990s, researcher Ray Blanchard studied families in which there is a male child with a homosexual orientation. He found that a gay man is more likely to have older brothers than older sisters. He found that the probability that a male child will grow up as a homosexual increases by about 33% for each older brother that he has. Blanchard suggests that this effect may be caused by an immune response within the mother during pregnancy

 
Upvote 0

Volos

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
3,236
171
57
Michign
✟4,244.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
(CONTINUED)



A collaborative study by researchers from the University of East London and the Institute of Psychiatry of King's College London measured the startle response, or eye blink reaction, of heterosexuals and homosexuals who were subjected to loud noises.

Using a technique called prepulse inhibition, researchers unexpectedly startled subjects with a loud noise preceded by a quieter noise.

"The startle response is preconscious and cannot be learned," Qazi Rahman from the University of East London explains. "It is mediated by an ancient region of the brain called the limbic system which also controls sexual behavior."

Results showed clear differences between homosexual and heterosexual groups



Rahman, Q. "Sexual Orientation Related Differences in Prepulse Inhibition of the Human Startle Response" Behavioral Neuroscience magazine, 2003-OCT,





The fruitless gene in Drosophila produces male-specific protein (FRU(M)) involved in the control of courtship. FRU(M) spatial and temporal patterns were examined in fru mutants that exhibit aberrant male courtship. Chromosome breakpoints at the locus eliminated FRU(M). Homozygous viable mutants exhibited an intriguing array of defects. In fru(1) males, there were absences ofFRU(M)-expressing neuronal clusters or stained cells within certain clusters,reductions of signal intensities in others, and ectopic FRU(M) expression in novel cells. fru(2) males exhibited an overall decrement of FRU(M) expression inall neurons normally expressing the gene. fru(4) and fru(sat) mutants onlyproduced FRU(M) in small numbers of neurons at extremely low levels, and noFRU(M) signals were detected in fru(3) males. This array of abnormalities was inferred to correlate with the varying behavioral defects exhibited by these mutants. Such abnormalities include courtship among males, which has been hypothesized to involve anomalies of serotonin (5-HT) function in the brain.However, double-labeling uncovered no coexpression of FRU(M) and 5-HT in brainneurons. Yet, a newly identified set of sexually dimorphic FRU(M)/5-HT-positive neurons was identified in the abdominal ganglion of adult males. These sexually dimorphic neurons (s-Abg) project toward regions of the abdomen involved in male reproduction. The s-Abg neurons and the proximal extents of their axons were unstained or absent in wild-type females and exhibited subnormal or no 5-HTimmunoreactivity in certain fru-mutant males, indicating that fruitless controls the formation of these cells or 5-HT production in them."

Drosophila.Lee G, Hall Abnormalities of male-specific FRU protein and serotonin expression in the CNS of fruitless mutants in JC. Journal of Neuroscience 2001 Jan 15;21(2):513-26







"We recruited twins systematically from the Australian Twin Registry and assessedtheir sexual orientation and 2 related traits: childhood gender nonconformityand continuous gender identity. Men and women differed in their distributions of sexual orientation, with women more likely to have slight-to-moderate degrees of homosexual attraction, and men more likely to have high degrees of homosexual attraction. Twin concordances for nonheterosexual orientation were lower than in prior studies. Univariate analyses showed that familial factors were important for all traits, but were less successful in distinguishing genetic from shared environmental influences. Only childhood gender nonconformity was significantly heritable for both men and women. Multivariate analyses suggested that the causal architecture differed between men and women, and, for women, provided significant evidence for the importance of genetic factors to the traits' covariation."


Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG. J Pers, Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Social Psycholgy 2000 Mar;78(3):524-36




"Research has generally supported the existence of familial-genetic factors for male sexual orientation, but has not shed much light on the specific nature of those influences. Gay men with gay brothers provide the opportunity to examine several hypotheses. Sixty-six men, representing 37 gay male sibling pairs,completed questionnaires assessing behavior on various measures includingchildhood and adult gender nonconformity, timing of awareness of homosexualfeelings, self-acceptance, and the quality of family relationships. Consistentwith prior findings using twins, gay brothers were similar in their degree ofchildhood gender non-conformity, suggesting that this variable may distinguish etiologically (e.g., genetically) heterogeneous subtypes. The large majority of gay men with brothers knew about their own homosexual feelings before they learned about their brothers' homosexual feelings, suggesting that discovery of brothers' homosexuality is not an important cause of male homosexuality."


Dawood K, Pillard RC, Horvath C, Revelle W, Bailey JM. Familial aspects of male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000 Apr;29(2):155-63






"The survival of a human predisposition for homosexuality can be explained by sexual orientation being a polygenetic trait that is influenced by a number of genes. During development these shift male brain development in the female direction. Inheritance of several such alleles produces homosexuality. Single alleles make for greater sensitivity, empathy, tender mindedness, and kindness.These traits make heterosexual carriers of the genes better fathers and more attractive mates. There is a balanced polymorphism in which the feminizing effect of these alleles in heterosexuals offsets the adverse effects (onreproductive success) of these alleles' contribution to homosexuality. A similar effect probably occurs for genes that can produce lesbianism in females. The whole system survives because it serves to provide a high degree of variabilityamong the personalities of offspring, providing the genotype with diversification and reducing competition among offspring for the same niches. An allele with a large effect can survive in these circumstances in males, but it is less likely to survive in females. The birth order effect on homosexuality is probably a by-product of a biological mechanism that shifts personalities more in the feminine direction in the later born sons, reducing the probability of these sons engaging in unproductive competition with each other."




Miller EM. Homosexuality, birth order, and evolution: toward an equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000 Feb;29(1):1-34





"The study of Drosophila melanogaster by a combination of forward genetics with specific mutants, and reverse genetics, in which a given gene is expressed in an appropriate brain area to test its effect on behavior, provides a unique opportunity to explore the causal relationship between a particular gene, its function in the cell and the behavioral outcome at the organismic level. Enhanced male-to-male courtship has been shown to occur as a result of mutations in several different genes. For example, the Voila mutant exhibits intense GAL4 reporter expression in the tarsal gustatory sensilla, suggesting the importance of tapping by a male on the female abdomen with his forelegs. Feminization of parts of the antennal lobe and mushroom body by targeted expression of afemale-determining gene transformer+ (tra+) drives the male to court other males. Mutations in the tra target gene fruitless (fru), which is expressed inthe antennal lobe as well as the suboesophageal ganglion (the gustatory inputsare processed here), also induce homosexual courtship in males. These resultssuggest that sensory inputs mediated and/or processed by the tarsal receptors,suboesophageal ganglion, antennal lobe and mushroom body contribute to theregulation of male-female courtship. Mosaic analysis localized the neural centerfor male courtship behavior to the posterior dorsal brain, in which the sensoryinformation processed by the aforementioned neural structures may be integrated.Another mosaic study mapped the neural center for female sexual behavior, asmeasured by her receptiveness to copulation, to the anterior dorsal brain. Theissue as to how the mutations that reduce female sexual receptiveness, e.g.dissatisfaction (dsf), spinster (spin) and chaste (cht), affect the structureand/or function of this neural center deserves to be addressed urgently."





Yamamoto D, Nakano Y Cell Mol Sexual behavior mutants revisited: molecular and cellular basis of Drosophila mating. Life Science 1999 Nov 15;56(7-8):634-46







"The white gene encodes an ABC-type transmembrane transporter that has a role in normal eye pigment deposition. In addition, overexpression in Drosophila leads to homosexual male courtship. Its human homologue has been implicated in cholesterol transport in macrophages and in mood disorders in human males. The garnet gene is a member of a group of other Drosophila eye colour genes that have been shown, or proposed, to function in intracellular protein transport. Recent molecular analysis indicates that it encodes the delta subunit of the AP-3 adaptin complex involved in vesicle transport from the trans-Golgi network to lysosomes and related organelles, such as pigment granules. This identification revealed a novel role for intracellular vesicular transport in Drosophila pigmentation. To further analyze this intracellular transport system, we examined the genetic interactions between garnet and a second site enhancer mutation, enhancer of garnet (e(g)). We show here that e(g) is a cryptic allele of the white gene. The white-garnet interaction is highly sensitive to the levels of both gene products but also shows some allele specificity for the white gene. The additive effect on pigmentation and the predicted protein products of these genes suggest that the garnet/AP-3 transport system ensures the correct intracellular localization of the white gene product. This model is further supported by the observation of homosexual male courtship behavior in garnet mutants, similar to that seen in flies overexpressing, and presumably mis-sorting, the white gene product. The w(e(g)) allele also enhances mutationsin the subset of other eye-color genes with phenotypes similar to garnet. This observation supports a role for these genes in intracellular transport and leads to a model whereby incorrect sorting of the white gene product can explain the pigmentation phenotypes of an entire group of eye-color genes."




Lloyd VK, Sinclair DA, Alperyn M, Grigliatti TA. Enhancer of garnet/deltaAP-3 is a cryptic allele of the white gene andidentifies the intracellular transport system for the white protein. Genome. 2002 Apr;45(2):296-312.











There exists several hundred scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals showing a biological origin for sexual orientation. They are not poorly constructed as you would like to pretend

 
Upvote 0

Volos

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
3,236
171
57
Michign
✟4,244.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
SpeakerEnder said:
There is far more evidence, and logic, to suggest that homosexuality is a result of environmental factors then there is of genetic factors.
Yet when we ask for evidence to back up claims like this the silence is deafening.





The fact remains there exists no legitimate studies that support the claim that sexual orientation is the result of ANY sociological, psychological or familial factor.



If you wish to make the claim otehrwise then please back it up.





"Current evidence suggests that environmental, familial, and personal influences contribute significantly to the development of homosexual tendencies. Seventy years of therapeutic counseling and case studies show a remarkable consistency concerning the origins of the homosexual impulse as an uncompleted gender identity seeking after its own sex to replace what was not fully developed in childhood." (NARTH.com)
A generalized statement by an organization that advocates a therapy known to not only be ineffective but actively harmful to individuals is hardly a source worth quoting.



"Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to quantitate mixture of some genetic factors, intrauterine influences-postnatal environment (such as parents, siblings, and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development." (Jeffrey Satinover, "The Gay Gene?" The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1966)
This quote is older than I am.



Made by a board member of Focus on the Family. The man has tried for years to claim that homosexuality is a mental illness and claims that gay activists blackmailed members of the APA in the early1970’s. He is a promoter of aversion therapy especially for teenagers (they can’t legally fight back as easily as adults) this “therapy involves electric shocks, sexual abuse and physical beatings.



Satinover testified at the Massachusetts courts about the evils of legal recognition of same sex marriage.

http://www.exgaywatch.com/xgw/2004/05/dr_satinover_po.html



Further it is an unsupported opinion not evidence.




Is there a genetic makeup that would support a predisposition for others to be homosexual? Quite likely. But the likelyhood of this being the sole factor is absurd.
evidence?




Perhaps he should look a little harder. You are speeking to one, for instance. Heck, there are hundreds (At least) of us. To find many who exist, as well as those they are currently supporting, please go here: http://www.livehope.org/ [/qutoe] funny, NARTH and Exodous and other groups claim there are tens of thousands.


Drs. Michael Schroeder Ariel Shidlo. Interviewed hundreds of men and women who attempted to change their sexual orientation and found: They published their findings in

“Ethical Issues in Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapies: An Empirical Study of Consumers” published in “Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical and Research Perspectives” Edited by Ariel Shidlo, PhD



“A significant proportion of reparative therapy patients sustain serious, lasting injuries. Having been misled into thinking that being gay is a mental disorder and something that can be changed if they'll only try hard enough, many people feel doubly flawed when a "cure" eludes them. "Frequently they become very, very depressed," a mental state that in many interviewees triggered such self-destructive behavior as unsafe sex, drug abuse or suicide attempts, Shield reports.

Reparative therapy not only encourages self-hatred but often sours family relationships by spreading the myth that homosexuality results from poor parenting. Some patients suffer spiritually when they cannot do what they're told God requires. And a great many temporarily lose their capacity for real human intimacy. Repressing gay desires creates a void, not a true heterosexual.”

An abstract of this and other studies in this book can be found at:

http://users.psychoanalysis.net/From%20Journal%20Editors/%233313255





Your argument is misleading, in that it leaves out several important pieces of information. First and foremost is that the APA decision did not directly reflect the views of American psychiatrists by the landslide that you suggest. [/qutoe] evidence?


In actuality, it was about as close as the Bush/Kerry race.
And thirty years later no one has ever attempted to amend this horrible, horrible miscarriage of justice and have homosexuality reclassified as a mental illness.



Of course no evidence that homosexuality is somehow a mental illness ha s ever been published. And no one has yet been able to conduct a legitimate study showing that homosexuality is anything but an inborn trait.


A survey conducted by the journal Medical Aspects of Homosexuality in 1979 asked 10,000 psychiatrists if they felt that homosexuality "usually represented a pathological adaptation." 69% of the respondants said "Yes," and 60% said homosexual men were less capable of "mature, loving relationships."
I would love to see your source on this….You of course realize that the journal of Medical Aspects of Homosexuality does not actually exist.


Furthermore, your direct quote: have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.'
and again…no one has offered evidence that sexual orientation is an illness.


This is far from what happened. The APA did not suggest any such thing. In fact, when speaking of the mental disorders that should be ommitted/included in the DSM, one of the stipulations for homosexuality to be excluded was only if homosexuals felt no "subjective distress" about their sexuality and experienced no "impairment in social effectiveness or functioning." The psychiatrist who authored the resolution in the first place plainly stated that the APA was not suggesting that homosexuality is normal.
Now who told you that particular little lie?



From the APA website

http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose~1.cfm



“In December 1973, the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees deleted homosexuality from its official nomenclature of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSMII). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it should either regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning. These experts found that homosexuality does not meet these criteria.”



Which pretty much contradicts everything you claim.


There is far more to the history of this issue, should you like to continue discussing it. However, please read up on the entirety of how it came about, and what exactly it entails before making claims.
I have.. why don't you follow yoru own advice and do so yoruslef instead of relying on groups like NARTH.
 
Upvote 0

robot23

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2004
410
17
✟620.00
Faith
Pagan
They do not suck because they do not have the ability to reproduce. Homosexuals suck because they can reproduce, but refuse to. Similar to lazy people who can work put choose welfare instead.
lots of straight people also refuse to reproduce
do they suck off of humanity as well?

Survival of the fittest?
doesn't make sense
the fact that certain people choose not to pass on their genes obviously doesn't mean that those people are doomed to extinction because there are still people (straight and gay) who choose not to reproduce



I "seem" to have? How could you know what I know about any three of those things through two short posts on a forum?
exactly why i said "seem" (sigh)
 
Upvote 0

Volos

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
3,236
171
57
Michign
✟4,244.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
SpeakerEnder said:
livehope.org does not have to be unbiased, thank you very much.
Good…because they are incredibly biased and dishonest.



The purpose of me placing it on the boards was so that our good friend Volos could find the missing ex-homosexuals of his. Unfortunately, some researchers don't look to deep. God forbid those darn ex-homosexuals grouping together to form a support group for others on the same path...


Actually it was Robert Spitzer who couldn’t find any ex-gays. Remember him? He was the researcher who tried to study ex-gays but couldn’t find any. Failing to do so he went to the roganizations who claim to have changed the sexual orientations of thousands or tens of thousands of individuals. They could give him only 274 individuals, of which only 11 actually claimed to have gone from being “exclusively homosexual” to “exclusively heterosexual” thanks to reparative therapy but of the 11 nine lied about being “exclusively homosexual” and all of the 11 worked for the very organizations who make the unsupported claims about changing sexual orientation.



Now, as far as the Narth site is concerned, that is no less and no more biased then many of the studies used to support genetic predisposition of homosexuality.
^_^
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subordinationist

Active Member
Nov 29, 2004
349
18
✟8,081.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
robot23 said:
lots of straight people also refuse to reproduce
do they suck off of humanity as well?

The heterosexual species reproduces, the homosexual does not.

Survival of the fittest?
doesn't make sense

Those who reproduce, survive. Those who don't, die.

the fact that certain people choose not to pass on their genes obviously doesn't mean that those people are doomed to extinction because there are still people (straight and gay) who choose not to reproduce

Individually, if an organism chooses not to reproduce, it dies (personal extinction). Offspring is the prolonged life of dead ancestors. Collectively, if a species chooses not to reproduce, it becomes extinct.



.
 
Upvote 0

robot23

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2004
410
17
✟620.00
Faith
Pagan
The heterosexual species reproduces, the homosexual does not.
heterosexuals CAN reproduce, they don't have to
homosexuals can reproduce as well, in vitro, surrogate motherhood etc

if a species chooses not to reproduce, it becomes extinct.
i quite agree
 
Upvote 0

robot23

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2004
410
17
✟620.00
Faith
Pagan
Individually, if an organism chooses not to reproduce, it dies (personal extinction). Offspring is the prolonged life of dead ancestors. Collectively, if a species chooses not to reproduce, it becomes extinct.
there are lots of people born today unable to reproduce
more will be born tomorrow
evolution is a little more complex than, have kids or become extinct
 
Upvote 0

Volos

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
3,236
171
57
Michign
✟4,244.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
John832 said:


Simply because you imply that the research has little value unless the delivered results show substantive evidence of the claim.




Wrong. Research done poorly has no value beyond what we can learn about conducting research in inappropriate and uncontrolled ways.




The Kallman twin study in the 50s seemed quite conclusive for a biological determinant. However, to my knowledge, no twin study has come anywhere close to the Kallman results. Does this mean the Kallman study never had any value? It does to me because it shows me that its inability to be replicated makes it suspect.
If a study is attempted and proves the hypothesis incorrect, it had value because it added a piece of information to the puzzle.
Perhaps if you actually read the Kallman study you would learn why no one talks much about it.



As noted above the value of it is in the lessons learned about research design and controlling for design flaws.



I brought up the Spitzer study because at the time I was writing it, I hadn’t seen you specifically address it and I knew it to be a controversial study. For those who obtain their information through NARTH, the Spitzer study is championed (as I am sure you are aware). I was playing the antagonist role mostly to hear your response.
I wasn’t making the assertion, Spitzer was. If I left the impression I was agreeing with Spitzer, I apologize for the confusion. I honestly had no personal feelings about the study but your response gave me plenty to ponder.
Spitzer made no assertions abotu the origin of sexual orientaion and in fact denies that hsexual orientaion is a matter of choice.
“The problem with many of the stories was that they raised the question of choice. Of course sexual orientation is not a matter of choice,” Robert Spitzer The Advocate, June 19, 2001


You can disagree with me but I still hold that the purpose of the study was to show that reparative therapy could effect change thereby showing that “choice” was involved.
it is not me that disagrees, it is Robert Spitzer.


I realize the underlying basis of the study is based in a belief that homosexuality is a pathological problem which is why it is so offensive to some. Perhaps my use of the concept of “choice” is too broad here. I was really using choice in opposition to innate. If Spitzer believed the problem to be repairable, he certainly could not have been supporting that it was innate.




Again Dr. Spitzer would disagree with you.



For their annual conference in 2000-MAY, the American Psychiatric Association had scheduled a panel discussion to debate whether there is any hard evidence that an adult's sexual orientation can be altered through reparative therapy. Dr. Robert Spitzer was scheduled to be the moderator. The debate was then cancelled. According to the APA: "The doctors who were to debate on the topic decided there was not enough scientific information to have a proper debate.. While there is information on reorientation therapy, there have been no controlled research studies." Dr. Spitzer set out to gather scientific information. He was not making judgments about the pathology of sexual orientation. www.APA.org



Once again, I wasn’t making the claim, Spitzer was. I was attempting to expound (by way of giving an example of the argument) on why I believed the Spitzer study to be about choice not trying to make a claim myself. I can understand why there would be confusion after re-reading the post. Perhaps this is bad communication on my part. In the future, I will be mindful that playing antagonist might likely lead to the assumption I am using it for support if I don’t explicitly state otherwise.
as has been noted numerous times spitzer made no such claim.



I am not sure I can agree that there is no evidence of people changing. For one, there are quite a few support groups for ex homosexuals. Their existence shows there is change (whether is it simply behavior or orientation is something I will have to take their word on). In addition, I personally know quite a few people that used to be exclusively homosexual that are now exclusively heterosexual. This is not scientific but it is curious to me that I happen to be experiencing an apparent anomaly. Schwartz and Masters suggested sustained changes in unwanted homosexual attraction (Schwartz, M. F. & Masters, W. H. (1984). The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, pp. 173-181). Kinsey’s studies showed significant shifts in sexual preference.
Your lack of research into what you are posting continues to show. Again try actually reading the studies you are trying to use.



From the abstract:

“The directive psychotherapy format alternates between confrontation of maladaptive belief systems and patterns of relating and support for finding new ways of coping that foster a positive self-image.”

Strange they mention nothing about “significant shifts in sexual preference.”



On a side not, the Kinsey study also brings up the interesting measure by which one determines ‘purely homosexual’ or ‘purely heterosexual’. If there is indeed any sort of continuum, how does the biological component work?



I would never suggest you must accept the validity of any study. I simply asked that you see the value in studies in general, irregardless if their results show a conclusive, repeatable result.
again you are falsly accusing me of baising my opinions of studys on their results.
The results of a poorly designed study are meaningless.


From my perspective, the more studies performed, whatever the results might be, paint a more complete picture. I, of course, would not expect anyone to accept unethical studies. I had not heard some of the issues you raised in post #44 regarding the Spitzer study. I clearly haven’t read as many criticisms of Spitzer as you have but I will certainly consider them.
studies are only as good as thier design. flauty studies do not pain a better picture, they obscure real results.


My original reaction to your post was less regarding your overall position that there is biology involved and more to do with the denial of any studies attempting to show non-biological factors. There are quite a few studies, books, writings, theories; most of which are dismissed by those who support biological determination.
again...please link us to these wonderful but rejected studies.


I do not want to take on the responsibility of presenting the evidence because I don’t disagree with there being a biological component. Since I don’t want to present the evidence, perhaps you will not continue the dialogue (which is fine with me).
sounds like you are saying thath there are no legitimate studies suppporting what you claim.



Does real evidence exist showing that sexual orientation is only choice? I haven’t seen any. Does real evidence exist showing that sexual orientation is only biological? I haven’t seen any.
i have yet to see any legitimate evidence thath sexual orientation is affected by choice in any way much less as an origin.

Whether the study was intended to make the claim, I would see the Bailey and Pillard twin study as demonstrating that there must be a non-biological component since identical twins only had a 52% chance of both having a homosexual orientation (I would expect numbers much closer to 100). In addition, the fact that fraternal twins were roughly twice as likely to have a homosexual orientation compared to other biological brothers suggests non-biological factors since fraternal twins would be just as genetically different as non twin biological brothers.



I apologize for making you feel attacked. There is nothing personal because I do not know you. From what I have read, it is illogical to assume that only a biological component can exist (I have seen no evidence of this) yet you continually suggest that there can be no social component.
incorrect once again.
I have continuously noted hath there exists no legitimate studies linking sexual orientation to anything but biology.

I will state once again that there exists no legitimate studies showing homosexuality is the result of choice, family structure, parental relations childhood sexual trauma or any other psychological, sociological or familial trait. Once again I will ask not only you but anyone to provide such a legitimate study.



Somehow, the burden of proof falls on me even though you are making the claim (namely social factors can’t exist).
Yet another dishonest statement. Thank you



I have made no such claim.




Perhaps non-existence is un-provable but there must be some logic to support the concept. I am not making a claim since I think ‘choice only’ is not supported by evidence or is rational based on personal observation, I think ‘biology only’ is not supported or rational so I am left with something other than those two. In my logic, that missing piece has to include non-biological factors. Is this measurable? I would think so.
yet no one has been able to actually measure it.


[qutoe] Are there studies doing it? Not really sure. [/qutoe] no.

In the absence of a definitive view of the biology (especially considering the number of studies involved trying to show it) I feel comfortable in assuming there are other non-biological components.
If only there was some actual support to your belief.


Honestly, I don’t know that I would take the time to find them because until you are able to present a conclusive study to show that only a biological component can exist than I see it as perfectly logical to assume other factors exist as well.
A very handy cop out.



You admit you have no evidence to support your claims but insist that until someone proves what you have already rejected you won’t bother to actually look at much of anything that goes counter to what you wish to believe.



 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Volos

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
3,236
171
57
Michign
✟4,244.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
SpeakerEnder said:
Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.59 However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion's share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men,60 and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#23



I have been over this site and this article amny times before. The autheors are dishonest in the extreme. This is another example of the author’s willingness ot lie ot promote a political agenda.



The claim comes from: Gay and Lesbian Medical Association Press Release, "Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers" (July 17, 2002), www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710lesbianthings.html.

And quoting form http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#13

“The list includes Breast Cancer, Depression/Anxiety, Gynecological Cancer, Fitness, Substance Use, Tobacco, Alcohol, Domestic Violence, Osteoporosis and Heart Health.” Nothing about STD’s

one can find the original release at:



http://www.glma.org/news/releases/n02071710lesbianthings.html



Hmm... This might be an interesting read for anyone who wants to read up on STDs in the lesbian community. I am in the process of checking up on the citations right now. But there is the link to the articles, if anyone else is interested.
If only it wasn’t a lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robot23
Upvote 0