Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Ohioprof]

I'll note to you that the only theories, not hypotheses, are the ones that dictate nurture being the cause of homosexuality. I'll also note that until the public put a lot of pressure on them for their position, the APA (American Psychological Association) deemed homosexualty a mental problem- a psychological disorder. That was up until 1973. That raises a red flag to me.

For more than 30 years, the APA has NOT deemed being gay an illness. That's a long time, my friend. The American Psychiatric Association does not regard being gay as an illness either. Neither does the American Medical Association. The days of listing "homosexuality" in the various DMS manuals are long over.

 

[naotmaa]

I'll note to you that the only theories, not hypotheses, are the ones that dictate nurture being the cause of homosexuality.

What "theories" are these?

I'll also note that until the public put a lot of pressure on them for their position, the APA (American Psychological Association) deemed homosexualty a mental problem- a psychological disorder. That was up until 1973. That raises a red flag to me.

The APA changed their position because their was no evidence of it being a disorder.
I have to run but I'll find more sources when I come back. I hope you will do the same.

 

[CShephard53]

For more than 30 years, the APA has NOT deemed being gay an illness. That's a long time, my friend. The American Psychiatric Association does not regard being gay as an illness either. Neither does the American Medical Association. The days of listing "homosexuality" in the various DMS manuals are long over.

I don't care how long it's been. It's what got it out of the manuals in the first place that's concerning. And since when do any of those associations get everything right? Since when are they flawless?

 

[CShephard53]

My sources come from the very studies gays spout off as theory. My sources come from surveys and case studies done on the relationship between a positive same sex influence (or lackthereof) and homosexuality occuring in people.

But, since you asked for info:
. There are two main categories for these theories, psychological/environmental theories and biological theories (Jones, p. 54-82). First, the psychological/environmental theories: psychoanalytic theory- this theory states that homosexuality is caused by a close-binding parent of the opposite sex, or an emotionally distant, rejecting, or absent parent of the same sex. Childhood sexual experience theory- this theory states that homosexuality is caused by sexual trauma in childhood (this theory is a theory within most theories). Exotic becomes erotic theory- this theory states that children can develop sexual (erotic) attraction to the gender they felt different from as a child. The biological theories: adult hormonal hypothesis- this hypothesis (note that a hypothesis is something that is not verifiable, whereas a theory is verified by evidence) states that homosexuals have abnormal levels of sex-related hormones than heterosexuals. Prenatal hormonal hypothesis- this hypothesis states that an infant’s sexual orientation is ‘wired’ during pregnancy as the infant is exposed to sex hormones during the 2nd-5th month of pregnancy. Genetic hypothesis- this hypothesis states that homosexuality is determined by the genetic code at conception.

Also, the raw data and the studies I refer to:
The Simon Le Vay study had to do with the hypothalamus gland in the brain. In the study, Le Vay found that the hypothalamus gland in homosexual men appeared to be two times as big as the glands found in heterosexual men. Bearing in mind that the hypothalamus gland is the center of the brain that mainly regulates hormone release and sexual behavior, Le Vay stated that the difference in size might have something to do with homosexuality. Le Vay also stated on the completion of his work, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work (Thomson, qtd. 101).” Therefore, it is useless to attempt to use this argument as a defense to a genetic cause.
The Bailey and Pillard study, done by J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, claimed to show that homosexuality is caused by genetics because of the sexual preference of identical and fraternal twins, as well as adopted brothers. The evidence they use to support this hypothesis is not only making assumptions based off a faulty study, they also could not reproduce the study. In the first study, they found that half of identical twins (where one brother was homosexual) both were homosexual. When they studied a different group, only twenty percent of both twins were homosexual. This evidence is useless, one reason being the study’s advertisement being in openly pro-homosexual magazines and tabloids (Jones and Yarhouse, 73). Another reason might be a similar study done on identical twins that were raised apart since birth. In this study, 6 pairs of twins were questioned; only in one pair were both homosexual. If homosexuality was caused by genetics all of the twins would be homosexual, not half of them.
In the study done by Dean Hamer, it was found that the tip of the X chromosome differed in homosexuals and heterosexuals. Another tried to replicate this study, and found opposite results, casting doubt on the study. It was the statement of Dean Hamer that ultimately discredits the study, “These genes do not cause people to become homosexuals ... the biology of personality is much more complicated than that (Thompson, qtd. 104.”


Now for the statistics and surveys I mentioned:
The logical evidence is quite compelling, but the statistical evidence is nearly overwhelming. In a questionnaire given in 1994 to 114 men, the following statistics were found.
“86 percent indicated little or no time spent with their fathers during childhood. 63 percent said their fathers were not considerate of their needs.50 percent believed their fathers did not love them. 45 percent reported that their fathers belittled or humiliated them. 44 percent felt their fathers were disinterested and detached. 39 percent said they hated their fathers (Thompson, 114).”
This questionnaire certainly gives credence to two theories: psychoanalytic and exotic becomes erotic. In another related study done by J. H. Brown, no cases in forty were found where the homosexual male had an affection relationship to their father (Thompson, 115).
Another startling set of statistics comes from another article containing studies done on homosexuals and their childhood. These studies focused on the Halloween costume choices, toy preferences, and sexual experiences. The statistics are quite compelling, as they back up the psychoanalytic and childhood sexual experience theories. In one study, all of the males who dressed in typically female costumes were homosexual. This suggests that gender identity is in direct relation to sexual preference.
Another study that backs up these conclusions and further supports homosexuality being nurture-related is a study done by Green in 1987, where 77 percent of homosexual males reported having no male friends (only female friends). In a study done by Hamer and Copeland, whose findings were published in the book The Science of Desire; the Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior, it was found that 86 percent of homosexuals had their first sexual encounter with a member of the same sex. The same source said that 96 percent of homosexual men had a first crush on other boys rather than girls. This strongly suggests that the exotic becomes erotic theory and the psychoanalytic theory holds true for most, if not all homosexuals.

Now the sources:
"Homosexuality: Biologically or Environmentally Constructed." 6 Nov. 2006 <http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html>.
Jones, Stanton L., and Mark A. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: the Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity P, 2000.
"The Legal Debate over Same-Sex Marriages." Britannica Book of the Year, 2005. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 4 Nov. 2006 <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9398669>.
Thompson, Chad W. Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos P, 2004.
Now a note about the last source- anything that was quoted in there I verified in a secondary source but used that book for the source in the paper.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've seen your studies. They don't give evidence to anything, the authors of the studies say that same thing.

And I have seen my studies, and they do.
The 'my dad is bigger than your dad' tactic gets us nowhere.
The fact remains that:
Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic brothers and 22% of the dizygotic twins were concordant for homosexuality Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.
If homosexuality is not inborn, then explain this statistic.

"Evolutionary advantage" doesn't mean a thing with regards to how it got started. My point, which you have yet to refute with any sort of evidence, is that you cannot know that or call homosexuality natural. There's not enough evidence to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt, in a court of law.

This is not a court of law. This is an informal internet text debate. Though the courts may not be convinced, it is the individual people who are to be convinced.

Your point being what?

That it is fallacious. I should have thought this was obvious.

I know what a logical fallacy is, and I haven't even touched an appeal to authority.

You said:
I've asked around to professors on my campus. They assure me that it is logical. So why don't you agree with logic?
I.e., because your professors assure you it's logical, it must therefore be logical.
This is an appeal to authority.

The thought was my own, and I'm telling you that it's been verified by scholars- people with doctorates. If you want to call that an appeal to authority, go for it. But the fact remains, that you ignore what's being put in front of you and calling it false without bothering to refute it.

You have put nothing in front of me. You have made unverified claims that 'professors with doctorates' agree with you. I see no papers cited, no evidence cited, not even a logical argument constructed.
What, exactly, am I calling false?

I've reviewed it for about a year now.[
If that's not good enough,

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less. Unless you cite something objective, you are just puffing your chest.

or should I say, if what the findings dictate are unacceptable to you, tough.

On the contrary, I have found the findings in line with my initial beliefs.
And believe me, I would change my beliefs if the evidence so suggested.

It's not my job to change your mind- I'm here to make sure the facts are presented. And the fact is there is no solid conclusion on the topic of where homosexuality comes from

While this is indeed a fact, it is a rather trivial one: there is also no solid conclusion on where modern Earth's biodiversity came from. But though we have no conclusive proof, we do have evidence. I have cited but one piece above.

 

[CShephard53]

And I have seen my studies, and they do.
The 'my dad is bigger than your dad' tactic gets us nowhere.
The fact remains that:
Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic brothers and 22% of the dizygotic twins were concordant for homosexuality Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.
If homosexuality is not inborn, then explain this statistic.

I might say the same for you. If it's inborn, why only 52 and 22%? Why not 100%?

This is not a court of law. This is an informal internet text debate. Though the courts may not be convinced, it is the individual people who are to be convinced.

You're not convincing anyone, and it shouldn't be your aim to convince anyone. If you know it's a debate, you know that almost no one's minds are changed in a debate.

You have put nothing in front of me. You have made unverified claims that 'professors with doctorates' agree with you. I see no papers cited, no evidence cited, not even a logical argument constructed.
What, exactly, am I calling false?

More claims...

I've given you a perfectly logical argument. I've stated it at least three times now. If that's not enough evidence for you, there's not much I can do for you. If you're going to neglect and ignore it, I'm not going to debate you.

Unless you cite something objective, you are just puffing your chest.

It is impossible to find anything completely objective on the topic. And I'd like to see anyone try. You're asking me to do what you can't do yourself.

Are those two studies all you have?
I've just posted plenty for you. Do you see fit to ignore it and call it anything but an argument?

 

[CShephard53]

You said:
I've asked around to professors on my campus. They assure me that it is logical. So why don't you agree with logic?
I.e., because your professors assure you it's logical, it must therefore be logical.
This is an appeal to authority.

And I'm the one puffing my chest? I'm not saying it's logical because they say it's logical, I'm merely commenting on your refusal to notice anything logical that's put in front of you. If that's a problem for you, it's yours, not mine.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I might say the same for you. If it's inborn, why only 52 and 22%? Why not 100%?

For the same reason that the blue eye colour, while inborn, is not the only eye colour.
Now please get back to the point.

You're not convincing anyone, and it shouldn't be your aim to convince anyone. If you know it's a debate, you know that almost no one's minds are changed in a debate.

This is incidental: most debates are never conclusively settled. I have been among some of the few that are. I an another poster here (I forget her name) debated whether the primordial universe was liquid in light of recent findings; I conceded defeat.
If you are so narrow-minded and pessimistic of humanity that you cannot recognise genuine curiosity... well, I must ask you: why are you here?

More claims...

I've given you a perfectly logical argument. I've stated it at least three times now. If that's not enough evidence for you, there's not much I can do for you. If you're going to neglect and ignore it, I'm not going to debate you.

You cited Le Vay and others and made remarks on their work after I had started my reply. Be patient.

It is impossible to find anything completely objective on the topic. And I'd like to see anyone try. You're asking me to do what you can't do yourself.

I have:
Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic brothers and 22% of the dizygotic twins were concordant for homosexuality Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.
You hand-wave this away with, to be frank, a childish question.

Are those two studies all you have?

No. But until you actually address them, I see no reason to cite them.

I've just posted plenty for you. Do you see fit to ignore it and call it anything but an argument?

Alas, the universe does not revolve around you. The reply system is flawed, and I did not see your post. I am getting around to it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

[snip]

Citing and then criticising flawed studies is a pointless exercise. Critically analyse sources that people have cited themselves.

Now for the statistics and surveys I mentioned:
The logical evidence is quite compelling, but the statistical evidence is nearly overwhelming. In a questionnaire given in 1994 to 114 men, the following statistics were found.
“86 percent indicated little or no time spent with their fathers during childhood. 63 percent said their fathers were not considerate of their needs.50 percent believed their fathers did not love them. 45 percent reported that their fathers belittled or humiliated them. 44 percent felt their fathers were disinterested and detached. 39 percent said they hated their fathers (Thompson, 114).”
This questionnaire certainly gives credence to two theories: psychoanalytic and exotic becomes erotic.

How? If almost half of all men hate their fathers, and almost all men felt estranged from them, then why are only 2-5% of men gay? It seems that the exotic is not erotic.

In another related study done by J. H. Brown, no cases in forty were found where the homosexual male had an affection relationship to their father (Thompson, 115).
Another startling set of statistics comes from another article containing studies done on homosexuals and their childhood. These studies focused on the Halloween costume choices, toy preferences, and sexual experiences. The statistics are quite compelling, as they back up the psychoanalytic and childhood sexual experience theories. In one study, all of the males who dressed in typically female costumes were homosexual. This suggests that gender identity is in direct relation to sexual preference.

Then the light shifts to the cause of gender identity. If it is shown to be genetic, or not, then our main point is so demonstrated.

Another study that backs up these conclusions and further supports homosexuality being nurture-related is a study done by Green in 1987, where 77 percent of homosexual males reported having no male friends (only female friends). In a study done by Hamer and Copeland, whose findings were published in the book The Science of Desire; the Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior, it was found that 86 percent of homosexuals had their first sexual encounter with a member of the same sex. The same source said that 96 percent of homosexual men had a first crush on other boys rather than girls. This strongly suggests that the exotic becomes erotic theory and the psychoanalytic theory holds true for most, if not all homosexuals.

Non sequitur. If all most all gay men had their first sexual encounter with (and attraction to) men, then surely this points to a biological cause? Or rather, how is a biological cause less likey than a psychological one?
You cite impressive evidence, but I do not see how you are drawing your conclusions.

 

[naotmaa]

Thank you very much for taking the time to post this info. I appreciate it.

My sources come from the very studies gays spout off as theory. My sources come from surveys and case studies done on the relationship between a positive same sex influence (or lackthereof) and homosexuality occuring in people.

But, since you asked for info:
. There are two main categories for these theories, psychological/environmental theories and biological theories (Jones, p. 54-82). First, the psychological/environmental theories: psychoanalytic theory- this theory states that homosexuality is caused by a close-binding parent of the opposite sex, or an emotionally distant, rejecting, or absent parent of the same sex. Childhood sexual experience theory- this theory states that homosexuality is caused by sexual trauma in childhood (this theory is a theory within most theories).

The issue with these theories are that it can be proven that none of the above has affected a gay person. So that would bring back the question as to why they are gay if this has never happened to them. Also, absent parents, sexual abuse, distant parent, etc. can occur to straight people as well. So that would bring up the question why do these events have such an effect that it will make some people gay and others not?

Exotic becomes erotic theory- this theory states that children can develop sexual (erotic) attraction to the gender they felt different from as a child.

again, the issue with this is that not all gay people have felt this way.

The biological theories: adult hormonal hypothesis- this hypothesis (note that a hypothesis is something that is not verifiable, whereas a theory is verified by evidence) states that homosexuals have abnormal levels of sex-related hormones than heterosexuals. Prenatal hormonal hypothesis- this hypothesis states that an infant’s sexual orientation is ‘wired’ during pregnancy as the infant is exposed to sex hormones during the 2nd-5th month of pregnancy. Genetic hypothesis- this hypothesis states that homosexuality is determined by the genetic code at conception.

Also, the raw data and the studies I refer to:
The Simon Le Vay study had to do with the hypothalamus gland in the brain. In the study, Le Vay found that the hypothalamus gland in homosexual men appeared to be two times as big as the glands found in heterosexual men. Bearing in mind that the hypothalamus gland is the center of the brain that mainly regulates hormone release and sexual behavior, Le Vay stated that the difference in size might have something to do with homosexuality. Le Vay also stated on the completion of his work, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work (Thomson, qtd. 101).” Therefore, it is useless to attempt to use this argument as a defense to a genetic cause.

No its not. LeVay, in his quote, is saying that people should not jump to conclusions that this is proof that people are born gay. Obviously he has not proven that but he has found evidence that would point it to being possibly biological. It supports the theory that it could be genetic. It's evidence.
Here is an interesting quote from LeVay in an article about the theories on homosexuality:

These studies have been small and underfunded, and the results have often been modest. Still, because there's been so much of this disparate research, "all sort of pointing in the same direction, makes it pretty clear there are biological processes significantly influencing sexual orientation," says LeVay. "But it's also kind of frustrating that it's still a bunch of hints, that nothing is really as crystal clear as you would like."

The Bailey and Pillard study, done by J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, claimed to show that homosexuality is caused by genetics because of the sexual preference of identical and fraternal twins, as well as adopted brothers. The evidence they use to support this hypothesis is not only making assumptions based off a faulty study, they also could not reproduce the study. In the first study, they found that half of identical twins (where one brother was homosexual) both were homosexual. When they studied a different group, only twenty percent of both twins were homosexual. This evidence is useless, one reason being the study’s advertisement being in openly pro-homosexual magazines and tabloids (Jones and Yarhouse, 73)

I would be very interested to see the Bailey and Pillard study. Why would putting advertisements in gay magazine make this study useless?

Another reason might be a similar study done on identical twins that were raised apart since birth. In this study, 6 pairs of twins were questioned; only in one pair were both homosexual. If homosexuality was caused by genetics all of the twins would be homosexual, not half of them.

Where did you find this study?

In the study done by Dean Hamer, it was found that the tip of the X chromosome differed in homosexuals and heterosexuals. Another tried to replicate this study, and found opposite results, casting doubt on the study. It was the statement of Dean Hamer that ultimately discredits the study, “These genes do not cause people to become homosexuals ... the biology of personality is much more complicated than that (Thompson, qtd. 104.”

Now for the statistics and surveys I mentioned:
The logical evidence is quite compelling, but the statistical evidence is nearly overwhelming. In a questionnaire given in 1994 to 114 men, the following statistics were found.
“86 percent indicated little or no time spent with their fathers during childhood. 63 percent said their fathers were not considerate of their needs.50 percent believed their fathers did not love them. 45 percent reported that their fathers belittled or humiliated them. 44 percent felt their fathers were disinterested and detached. 39 percent said they hated their fathers (Thompson, 114).”

This questionnaire certainly gives credence to two theories: psychoanalytic and exotic becomes erotic. In another related study done by J. H. Brown, no cases in forty were found where the homosexual male had an affection relationship to their father (Thompson, 115).

Another startling set of statistics comes from another article containing studies done on homosexuals and their childhood. These studies focused on the Halloween costume choices, toy preferences, and sexual experiences. The statistics are quite compelling, as they back up the psychoanalytic and childhood sexual experience theories. In one study, all of the males who dressed in typically female costumes were homosexual. This suggests that gender identity is in direct relation to sexual preference.

This, however, does not disprove the inborn theory. also, their was a study done by William Reiner about gender identity. In developing nations it used to be common practise to castrate boy with small penises and have them raised as girls. Despite this, the majority of these boys as adults, said they were attracted to women and began living their lives as males.

Another study that backs up these conclusions and further supports homosexuality being nurture-related is a study done by Green in 1987, where 77 percent of homosexual males reported having no male friends (only female friends).

It should be taken into consideration that straight men are more likely to be somewhat uncomfortable about the idea of having a gay male friend.

In a study done by Hamer and Copeland, whose findings were published in the book The Science of Desire; the Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior, it was found that 86 percent of homosexuals had their first sexual encounter with a member of the same sex. The same source said that 96 percent of homosexual men had a first crush on other boys rather than girls. This strongly suggests that the exotic becomes erotic theory and the psychoanalytic theory holds true for most, if not all homosexuals.

This really doesn't prove anything.
I'm sure that most straight people had their first sexual encouter with someone of the opposite sex and that their first crush would be someone of the opposite sex.

Now the sources:
"Homosexuality: Biologically or Environmentally Constructed." 6 Nov. 2006 <http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html>.
Jones, Stanton L., and Mark A. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: the Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity P, 2000.
"The Legal Debate over Same-Sex Marriages." Britannica Book of the Year, 2005. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 4 Nov. 2006 <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9398669>.
Thompson, Chad W. Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos P, 2004.
Now a note about the last source- anything that was quoted in there I verified in a secondary source but used that book for the source in the paper.

I'm afraid Jones and Yarhouse might be somewhat biased in their evidence.
They do point out in their book that are doing research "through the eyes of faith" and with the idea that homosexuality is immoral.
Here is an interesting article about some theories:http://www.bri.ucla.edu/bri_weekly/news_050812.asp
Sorry i have not provided with any sources and not a very thorugh response.
I'll try to find some sources later on. I'm moving in two days so I have been very busy (and nervous).

 

[CShephard53]

I do not have time tonight to respond to the both of you, I will do so tomorrow afternoon.

 

[CShephard53]

To begin with I need to state clearly two things. One, my point in all of this is to make it clear that the causes for homosexuality cannot be only nature, or in fact only nurture. It must be both until enough evidence is given to one side that would totally discredit the other.
Second, I am responding first to naotmaa, then to wiccanchild.

The issue with these theories are that it can be proven that none of the above has affected a gay person. So that would bring back the question as to why they are gay if this has never happened to them. Also, absent parents, sexual abuse, distant parent, etc. can occur to straight people as well. So that would bring up the question why do these events have such an effect that it will make some people gay and others not?

again, the issue with this [exotic becomes erotic] is that not all gay people have felt this way.

No one claimed that it happens to all gay people. Moot point. The point is that it does happen for many gays.

No its not. LeVay, in his quote, is saying that people should not jump to conclusions that this is proof that people are born gay. Obviously he has not proven that but he has found evidence that would point it to being possibly biological. It supports the theory that it could be genetic. It's evidence.

Again, it's not theory until it has more evidence to it- one simple study on a part of the brain isn't going to cut it until you know how it got to being that way in some but not that way in others.

Since the hypothalmus regulates hormones and such, the enlargment could be because of homosexuality rather than the cause of it. The findings put forth in the study were inconclusive because there was not enough detail to it.

Why would putting advertisements in gay magazine make this study useless?

Put simply, it shows bias. It means that the selection wasn't random because some homosexuals would jump at the opportunity to prove that they're born with what they have. It means that the survey isn't as reliable because it was selective in where it put its advertisements- if it called random twins, simply asking them questions, you would get better and more accurate results.

Where did you find this study?

The study was done in Australia, and the intent of the study was to check Bailey and Pillard's findings. I found it quoted in Jones and Yarhouse.

I'm afraid Jones and Yarhouse might be somewhat biased in their evidence.
They do point out in their book that are doing research "through the eyes of faith" and with the idea that homosexuality is immoral.

Every single study that I used from that source they quoted from another source directly- quotation marks included. How direct quotes could be biased is beyond me unless they'd risk lying to the public and being shot down beyond all belief.

This, however, does not disprove the inborn theory. also, their was a study done by William Reiner about gender identity. In developing nations it used to be common practise to castrate boy with small penises and have them raised as girls. Despite this, the majority of these boys as adults, said they were attracted to women and began living their lives as males.

That is a moot point unless in raising them as girls they isolated them from other male children and other male influences. What's been found is that a positive or negative same-sex influence has an effect on gender identity- that's the point of all these statistics. Mainly the one you didn't comment on:
In another related study done by J. H. Brown, no cases in forty were found where the homosexual male had an affection relationship to their father (Thompson, 115).

It should be taken into consideration that straight men are more likely to be somewhat uncomfortable about the idea of having a gay male friend.

It should be taken into consideration that the friendship thing was as they were kids, not adults in the particular study that comment was made on.







Now, on to wiccanchild.

Citing and then criticising flawed studies is a pointless exercise. Critically analyse sources that people have cited themselves.

When I did my research for the paper I wrote, and posted bits of here, I did not look at the things surrounding the studies in the boks, I looked only at the sources. What do you think I was doing the whole time? Finding stuff to complain about? I wrote that paper a year ago, unsure of what my results would be when I started the paper. If you don't call that critical analysis, I can't help you. I tried my best to be objective. You seem convinced that I started off without a doubt in my mind what I would find.

How? If almost half of all men hate their fathers, and almost all men felt estranged from them, then why are only 2-5% of men gay? It seems that the exotic is not erotic.

I like how you took that out of context with the rest of it. Read:
In a questionnaire given in 1994 to 114 men, the following statistics were found.
“86 percent indicated little or no time spent with their fathers during childhood. 63 percent said their fathers were not considerate of their needs.50 percent believed their fathers did not love them. 45 percent reported that their fathers belittled or humiliated them. 44 percent felt their fathers were disinterested and detached. 39 percent said they hated their fathers (Thompson, 114).”
This questionnaire certainly gives credence to two theories: psychoanalytic and exotic becomes erotic. In another related study done by J. H. Brown, no cases in forty were found where the homosexual male had an affection relationship to their father (Thompson, 115).

The questionare questioned homosexuals, not simply men. I was on a page limit when I wrote this paper and I went over, so I had to cut some things- so I wrote that part in such a way that it would be clear that both studies were studying homosexuals, but not saying it each time for each study. Your point is moot.

Non sequitur. If all most all gay men had their first sexual encounter with (and attraction to) men, then surely this points to a biological cause? Or rather, how is a biological cause less likey than a psychological one?

I like how you completely ignored the first part- about childhood friends, or just in general the part about childhood. Because that has everything to do with it. All of the things you quoted for your reply had to do with the childhood of the homosexuals in the study. In other words, their first sexual encounter was not with men but with other boys. This clearly demonstrates the sexual experience theory.

For the same reason that the blue eye colour, while inborn, is not the only eye colour.
Now please get back to the point.

Okay. I'll state it again. There is no way you can correctly state without further evidence and knowledge of how homosexuality started in humans that homosexuality is natural. Stating that there's evidence to suggest it might be biological doesn't cut it. It's not cut and dried yet- there's evidence for both nature and nurture being the cause, and I'd venture to say that it's both nature and nurture, not one or the other- just like anything else within psychology. Why am I being so persistent about this you might ask? Because I would hate for the readers and debaters on this thread to get an inaccurate representation of the way things are.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When I did my research for the paper I wrote, and posted bits of here, I did not look at the things surrounding the studies in the boks, I looked only at the sources. What do you think I was doing the whole time? Finding stuff to complain about? I wrote that paper a year ago, unsure of what my results would be when I started the paper. If you don't call that critical analysis, I can't help you. I tried my best to be objective. You seem convinced that I started off without a doubt in my mind what I would find.

I was questioning why you posted the paper at all. You have stated that there is no evidence for inborn homosexuality; the burden of proof is not on you.

I like how you took that out of context with the rest of it. Read:
In a questionnaire given in 1994 to 114 men, the following statistics were found.
“86 percent indicated little or no time spent with their fathers during childhood. 63 percent said their fathers were not considerate of their needs.50 percent believed their fathers did not love them. 45 percent reported that their fathers belittled or humiliated them. 44 percent felt their fathers were disinterested and detached. 39 percent said they hated their fathers (Thompson, 114).”
This questionnaire certainly gives credence to two theories: psychoanalytic and exotic becomes erotic. In another related study done by J. H. Brown, no cases in forty were found where the homosexual male had an affection relationship to their father (Thompson, 115).

The questionare questioned homosexuals, not simply men. I was on a page limit when I wrote this paper and I went over, so I had to cut some things- so I wrote that part in such a way that it would be clear that both studies were studying homosexuals, but not saying it each time for each study. Your point is moot.

Where does it state that the 114 men were all homosexual?

I like how you completely ignored the first part- about childhood friends, or just in general the part about childhood. Because that has everything to do with it. All of the things you quoted for your reply had to do with the childhood of the homosexuals in the study. In other words, their first sexual encounter was not with men but with other boys. This clearly demonstrates the sexual experience theory.

I disagree: it clearly demonstrates no theory, or rather, supports all theories. That the boys were attracted to their own sex at such a young age merely shows that homosexuality is formed at a young age / in utero.
That is, if homosexuality was formed in utero, or via genetics, then it is entirely possible that it would show itself at a young age (notice that the boys were on the cusp of puberty).

Okay. I'll state it again. There is no way you can correctly state without further evidence and knowledge of how homosexuality started in humans that homosexuality is natural. Stating that there's evidence to suggest it might be biological doesn't cut it. It's not cut and dried yet- there's evidence for both nature and nurture being the cause, and I'd venture to say that it's both nature and nurture, not one or the other- just like anything else within psychology. Why am I being so persistent about this you might ask? Because I would hate for the readers and debaters on this thread to get an inaccurate representation of the way things are.

I believe we are misunderstanding one another, so let us start over:
What, exactly, do you mean by 'natural'?

 

[SpiritDriven]

Homosexuality would be wrong....if....your right standing with God was dependant on your Sexuality.

If you all go back and re read Romans chapter 8, some of you may begin to notice how focused on the Flesh this thread is.

This thread is not focused on the Spirit at all....

Peace

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Homosexuality would be wrong....if....your right standing with God was dependant on your Sexuality.

If you all go back and re read Romans chapter 8, some of you may begin to notice how focused on the Flesh this thread is.

This thread is not focused on the Spirit at all....

Peace

In all fairness, this is a thread on the morality of homosexuality. What do you expect to be discussed other than the morality of homosexuality?

 

[CShephard53]

Wiccanchild, if you have to ask what I mean by natural after over 50 posts discussing the issue, it is not up to me to explain it to you. Natural. Look it up in a dictionary.

I disagree: it clearly demonstrates no theory, or rather, supports all theories. That the boys were attracted to their own sex at such a young age merely shows that homosexuality is formed at a young age / in utero.
That is, if homosexuality was formed in utero, or via genetics, then it is entirely possible that it would show itself at a young age (notice that the boys were on the cusp of puberty).

Possible, but you cannot assume that it is probable. And how can something demonstrate none or all?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccanchild, if you have to ask what I mean by natural after over 50 posts discussing the issue, it is not up to me to explain it to you.

We have been discussing evidence for whether it is natural or not. No consensus was ever reached on what 'natural' is.
We cannot meaningfully talk of 'evidence for whether it is natural' if we do not agree on what you mean by 'natural'.

Natural. Look it up in a dictionary.

• [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]
• existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation; "a natural pearl"; "natural gas"; "natural silk"; "natural blonde hair"; "a natural sweetener"; "natural fertilizers"
• existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; "a perfectly natural explanation"
• functioning or occurring in a normal way; lacking abnormalities or deficiencies; "it's the natural thing to happen"; "natural immunity"; "a grandparent's natural affection for a grandchild"
• (of a key) containing no sharps or flats; (of a note) being neither raised nor lowered by one chromatic semitone; "a natural scale"; "B natural"
• unthinking; prompted by (or as if by) instinct; "a cat's natural aversion to water"; "offering to help was as instinctive as breathing"
• (used especially of commodities) being unprocessed or manufactured using only simple or minimal processes; "natural yogurt"; "natural produce"; "raw wool"; "raw sugar"; "bales of rude cotton"
• someone regarded as certain to succeed; "he's a natural for the job"
• related by blood; not adopted; "natural parent"
• being talented through inherited qualities; "a natural leader"; "a born musician"; "an innate talent"
• a notation cancelling a previous sharp or flat
• (craps) a first roll of 7 or 11 that immediately wins the stake
• lifelike: free from artificiality; "a lifelike pose"; "a natural reaction"[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Which one are you talking about? Simply referring one to the dictionary is a poor technique: which dictionary? Technical or colloquial? One compiled by formal experts or by all people (â la Wikipedia)?
[/SIZE]

Possible, but you cannot assume that it is probable.

Yet you claim that it "clearly demonstrates the sexual experience theory" Is this not the same as saying it is probable? If something is clearly demonstrated, how can it be anything other than probable (if not proven)?

And how can something demonstrate none or all?

Because it supports no one theory in and of itself, but can be used by each theory as supporting evidence.

 

[tulc]

And since when do any of those associations get everything right? Since when are they flawless?

...which might explain why it was changed?
tulc(just a thought)

 

[CShephard53]

Yet you claim that it "clearly demonstrates the sexual experience theory" Is this not the same as saying it is probable? If something is clearly demonstrated, how can it be anything other than probable (if not proven)?

Yet I did not say that was the only 'theory' it clearly demonstrates, did I? I said clearly demonstrates for a reason.

existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation; "a natural pearl"; "natural gas"; "natural silk"; "natural blonde hair"; "a natural sweetener"; "natural fertilizers"

That would probably be more accurate to my responses to your posts, which should, but may not be clear. Do you want to go with that?

 

[RMDY]

First of all, I have faith: notice my lack of atheism.

Wiccan_Child, if you have faith, why are you a Pagan?