What science says about homosexuality

[Shane Roach]

Well, democracy without protection from such tyranny of the majority is wrong, because it harms innocent people - the minorities that must obey whatever the majority decides for them.

The difference is that cheating on your partner, or getting a divorce (especially when you have children) is something that harms people. While one person falling in love and living together in a relationship with another person of the same sex isn't something that causes harm to anyone. It brings these two people happiness, and is totally neutral towards everyone else.

By the way, do you believe that divorce should be illegal? That would cause even more harm. It's true that getting a divorce isn't a good thing, but it's a lesser evil. People aren't all-knowing and sometimes make wrong decisions about who they should have a stable relationship with, so there must be some way to be able to correct these wrong decisions.

If a cultural barrier forbids something that doesn't cause harm, then such a barrier should be destroyed. Such cultural barriers are good when they protect people from harm (for example, rape) and wrong when they prevent people from pursuing happiness without harming anyone (for example, homosexual relationships). By the way, people used to believe that interracial marriage is very disturbing and that legalizing it breaks down important cultural barriers.

There's a lot of hatred among many people against homosexuals who just want to live in peace in their relationships.

It's good when the majority harms others.

The repeated assertion that open homosexuality doesn't cause harm is merely an assumption. There is a good bit of historical evidence that such behavior represents a breakdown in a culture, or is at least symptomatic. Having such behavior modeled and held up as normal will eventually influence out children. We know this because different societies at different times have accepted a wide range of behaviors and had them proliferate, even if self destructive. Human sacrifice is not even beyond the realm of possibility as far as the things a society can grow to accept.

A fellow commented on a blog I left on Town Hall the other day, "Never remove a wall if you don't know why it is there." Sound advice.

 

[Shane Roach]

I would! The idea that someone can come round and see if I'm having sex right is down right creepy in my opinion.

Besides, the private sex acts are not the issue. Gays can and do have sex quite legeally and happily and I've not seen any proposed legislation to limit that.

I didn't bring up the point. I just answered the question.

 

[b&wpac4]

As I said, responsible people meeting minimal community standards of behavior are not going to have problems with people nosing around as to exactly what they do in the bedroom. What is being proposed now is public policy, not private sexual behavior.

I have a problem with someone looking at my computer desktop screen when I have not given them express permission to do so. Why do you think I would feel comfortable with someone trying to find out what I do in my bedroom?

 

[Belk]

The repeated assertion that open homosexuality doesn't cause harm is merely an assumption. There is a good bit of historical evidence that such behavior represents a breakdown in a culture, or is at least symptomatic. Having such behavior modeled and held up as normal will eventually influence out children. We know this because different societies at different times have accepted a wide range of behaviors and had them proliferate, even if self destructive. Human sacrifice is not even beyond the realm of possibility as far as the things a society can grow to accept.

A fellow commented on a blog I left on Town Hall the other day, "Never remove a wall if you don't know why it is there." Sound advice.

According to whom? Have you seen opinions from historical anthropologists that this is the case?

 

[Shane Roach]

People can and do argue endlessly about what is harmful and what is helpful. There are laws on the books shielding corporate officers from culpability if they break certain laws so long as the company makes money, because their fiduciary obligation to the corporate shareholders is seen to outweigh their duty as citizens to obey the law.

Ultimately, we have a system for deciding who is right and who is wrong about such things. If laws are passed through the democratic process, I have no real qualms. My main objection to gay marriage is the use of the civil rights argument to push it through the courts.

It creates an irreconcilable difference between the state and the church. It is essentially the death knell of the separation of church and state.

 

[Shane Roach]

I have a problem with someone looking at my computer desktop screen when I have not given them express permission to do so. Why do you think I would feel comfortable with someone trying to find out what I do in my bedroom?

This is a public policy debate. I have said three times now, if people behave in a manner acceptable according to community standards, no one is going to be in their bedroom or on their computers.

I don't know what else can be said about the issue. Who you are having sex with is not a similar issue to the details of how you choose to have sex.

 

[Shane Roach]

According to whom? Have you seen opinions from historical anthropologists that this is the case?

It's not a subject I have detailed knowledge of. I do have this note from previous research.

Homosexuality as a sign of breakdown in society: Abram Kardiner.


“Those who reinforce the disintigrative elements in our society will get no thanks from future generations. The family is the ultimate victim of homosexuality, a result which any society can tolerate only within certain limits."

Mostly it is something I have heard in various situations talking about history with groups of people who have no particular interest in gay activism.

 

[b&wpac4]

I don't know what else can be said about the issue. Who you are having sex with is not a similar issue to the details of how you choose to have sex.

I, honestly, don't follow you here. You care about how I'm having sex, or you care about who I'm having sex with? I'm not sure which you are saying.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I have a problem with someone looking at my computer desktop screen when I have not given them express permission to do so. Why do you think I would feel comfortable with someone trying to find out what I do in my bedroom?

G, L, B, all have to do with what THEY do in their bedrooms (and elsewhere).

Why the need to be labeled by sexual desires?

 

[b&wpac4]

Why the need to be labeled by sexual desires?

Why the need to be labeled by your religious belief?

 

[Belk]

It's not a subject I have detailed knowledge of. I do have this note from previous research.




Mostly it is something I have heard in various situations talking about history with groups of people who have no particular interest in gay activism.

It's a place to start at least, thanks.

 

[Maren]

G, L, B, all have to do with what THEY do in their bedrooms (and elsewhere).

Why the need to be labeled by sexual desires?

Why do you need to be labeled by your sexual desires (since "marriage" appears to be defined, in your opinion, as "a man and woman who have monogamous sex")?

 

[Shane Roach]

It's a place to start at least, thanks.

If you start looking and finding things, and posting them, it'll probably put an end to my laziness on the subject.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Why the need to be labeled by your religious belief?

It's mandated in the New Testament for followers of Messiah Yeshua. They were first called "Christians" in Antioch.

 

[b&wpac4]

It's mandated in the New Testament for followers of Messiah Yeshua. They were first called "Christians" in Antioch.

Could you link a verse that says it was mandated? I have never seen such a mandate and would be interested to see that.

 

[LittleNipper]

You would disagree, but be unable to give a reason why. Nice.

50 years ago who even imagined that the rest of society would be faced with a redefining of marriage to suit uppity negros.

Marriage has been drastically changed since its inception.. which would you like to go back to again? Which is the right one?

Oh and by the by, more than likely a few of those happy "mommies and daddies" weren't really very happy in their relationship. I'd be willing to bet there were even homosexuals back then! *GASP*!

There have been white and black intermarriages for thousands of years. Even white settlers married Indians. But there is no ancient record of a white man given in marriage to a Black man. The very thought is ridiculous. All the two guys would have to do is become business partners. At least they'd have exactly what they wanted without looking like GOD and ritualistic convention was important to their union.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Hello, I would like to discuss homosexuality. Before I do so I would like to state that I understand this is a controversial topic and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I mean no disrespect towards anyone.

That being said I do not understand how people deny homosexuality as being scientifically proven to not be a "lifestyle choice". What proof do you need?

You mean besides the over 15 years of scientific studies that included brain scans (CT and MRI) that showed the brain of a gay person was actually structurally and functionally more like that of the opposite sex than their own?

In 1991, brain scientist Simon LeVay reported that the hypothalamus, which is involved in sexual behavior, tended to be smaller in gay men. Other researchers subsequently showed that the brains of gay and straight people appeared likely to respond differently to sexual images. The researchers who conducted the new study previously reported that the brains of gay and straight men seemed to react differently to suspected pheromones -- odors thought to be involved in sexual arousal.

Ivanka Savic and Per Lindstrom of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in which they used MRI to compare brain symmetry in straight and gay men and women. They found that gay men tended to have brains that were more like those of straight women than of straight men -- the right and left sides were about the same size while gay women's brains tended to be more like those of straight men than of straight women -- the right side tended to be slightly larger than the left.

When they switched to PET scans, they found that in a part of the brain involved in processing emotions -- the amygdala -- and is connected to other brain regions gay men tended to be more like straight women, with a stronger link between the amygdala and regions involved in emotions. Gay women tended to be more like straight men, with stronger connections to motor functions.

There are other biological markers as well, with recent studies having been done at CSU Fullerton and Queen Mary, University of London, among many, many others.

In other words, you cannot dispute that there is a biological, genetic cause for homosexuality, no matter what your feelings are about it.

Old discredited scientific research?

Yes.

Born Gay Hoax: Studies Debunked Conservative Colloquium


A peek:

In conclusion, all studies that have claimed to have found an immutable cause for same-gender sexual desires and behaviors have crumbled under the scrutiny of peer review. Same-gender sexual desires are not genetic. There is no scientific evidence which shows that they are. None. Not a single person has been found with any innate “gay” gene, organ, hormone, chemical, or combination thereof.

Other erroneous born “gay” studies have been conducted. These however, are less known. The results of these studies fail to show that homosexuality is somehow natural. The following refutations were written by Robert Knight, while working for the prestigious Concerned Women for America’s, Culture and Family Institute. I should thank him for allowing me to use his work here.


It should be noted, however, that this section is intended to be a catalogue of refutations. Therefore, before beginning, I will take the time to refer readers that are not interested in reading about “every study ever conducted” to the next chapter. If however, you are curious, by all means, continue.

There's always truth out there.

 

[Mercy Medical]

I'm starting to feel like it's almost pointless to argue the science debate, especially considering that religion is more of a choice then anything, but for some reason they are granted more rights and benefits then the LGBT community and also think they can limit the rights and freedoms of the LGBT community because they have made a choice to be a Christian and therefore must abide by God's law and force everyone else to do so as well, regardless of other people's own personal beliefs.

 

[FlamingFemme]

I'm starting to feel like it's almost pointless to argue the science debate, especially considering that religion is more of a choice then anything, but for some reason they are granted more rights and benefits then the LGBT community and also think they can limit the rights and freedoms of the LGBT community because they have made a choice to be a Christian and therefore must abide by God's law and force everyone else to do so as well, regardless of other people's own personal beliefs.

Totally agree with you here.
I'm really tired of hearing how religion, which is most definitely a choice, deserves more legal protections than MY LIFE (not 'lifestyle') which is NOT a choice.
On top of that, I keep hearing about this mysterious 'harm' that my marriage is causing the world, but no one can tell me what this 'harm' is.

 

[Mercy Medical]

Totally agree with you here.
I'm really tired of hearing how religion, which is most definitely a choice, deserves more legal protections than MY LIFE (not 'lifestyle') which is NOT a choice.
On top of that, I keep hearing about this mysterious 'harm' that my marriage is causing the world, but no one can tell me what this 'harm' is.

Well, at this point in time I find the whole science vs. choice debate just to be laughable for the reasons I stated in that post.

Gay marriage has been legal in MA for how long? Going on 5 years? I'm pretty sure that state hasn't dropped off into the depths of hell and people have realized that gay marriage in no way harms or affects their hetero marriage.

I've also presented the argument on this forum numerous times that legalizing gay marriage continues to strengthen the idea of family and commit relationships. It start a precedence for committed relationships between people and encourages homosexual families to adopt/have children within a married unit. I really don't see how encouraging committed relationships and family units really threatens heterosexual marriage or heterosexual families in any way, but somehow every time I present that argument it just gets ignored.