What science says about homosexuality

[David Brider]

What if he put the words of the sentence in different order and added an ity to the long one? Ignorance disappears right? Or at least knowledge is headed in the right direction?

It's just as erroneous to say "homosexuality is exclusively anal sex" as it is to say "anal sex is exclusively homosexual", because just as not everyone who engages in anal sex is homosexual, neither does everyone who is homosexual engage in anal sex.

David.

 

[Andreusz]

^ I didn't realize he actually meant something when he said to rearrange the words and add '-ity'.

 

[Skaloop]

Who determines the objectivity?

Society. Which I guess still isn't strictly objective, but it does move out of the range of personal subjectivity.

When I wrote that anal sex is strictly homosexual, I meant that most homosexuals have anal sex and I did not word it correctly.

Since lesbians don't have anal sex, and not all gay men have anal sex, I am not sure it is correct to say most homosexuals have anal sex.

"Anal penetration carries more risks than vaginal intercourse, oral sex, and outercourse. The reason is that rectum and colon are not self-lubricating like the vagina and the delicate colorectal tissue can get damaged more easily due to insertion and friction. Anal penetration can result in physical injury (anal rupture) because the colorectal passage curves are neither strongly muscled nor padded. Colorectal function includes absorption of fluid into the blood stream, providing an efficient entry point for STDs and an easy barrier to cross through even small tears in the intestinal lining."
Sexually Transmitted Diseases | Std06

Again, this is an argument (albeit, in my opinion, a weak one) against anal sex, and more specifically unsafe anal sex practices. They apply equally to heterosexual people who partake in anal sex. Nothing to do with homosexuality, especially when, as I mentioned, lesbians do not, generally, have anal sex.

Do you have research and evidence to back up your experience? (sarcasm intended).

Sarcasm aside, I am merely observing that non-effeminate gay men exist in not-insignificant numbers.

Are you pursuing a masters?

Nope. I got my BSc 10 years ago, then got an unrelated job that was supposed to be just for the summer, and now I've been working there 10 years. So my degree isn't directly applicable to my job. It does come in handy, though.

If I had continued on the psych path, though, I probably would have gotten into linguistics and/or the cognition of language.

 

[David Brider]

^ I didn't realize he actually meant something when he said to rearrange the words and add '-ity'.

It took me a while to work it out, admittedly. But I think that was what he was getting at...

David.

 

[IzzyPop]

I find references and resources that support my argument and you do the same. You can call it bias when it really isn't.



Really? I thought it was me

Would you give equal weight to data on the effects of smoking from a tobacco company or the Heart and Lung Association as you would the AMA?

No. Does this mean I treat them inferior? No.

So you do not support equality for homosexuals, but you treat them the same? How does that work, exactly?

Many atheists idealize and "preach" subjectivity except in the instances of disagreements, especially in moral issues such as homosexuality.

Is everything that is wrong also harmful?

Yes.

Do you base your ethics off of real harm or the potential of it?

Real. Nearly everything has the potential of harming someone.

I disagree. You know I am not going to say there is anything wrong with love between the same sex. But, that isn't what is being debated: the genetics of homosexuality. We have slowly shifted from that since there isn't any substantial evidence to conclude homosexuality is from birth.



Hmm. Do you feel it is healthy for a man or woman to be sexually attracted to children? I would prefer a yes or no answer.

I cannot answer that as a yes or no. I don't see it attraction as having any trait that can be healthy or unhealthy. Acting on that attraction can be, but the attraction itself would be neutral.

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

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.

Even if you did have conclusive proof (none of this meets that criteria) that people are born Gay (which i believe by the way) what exactly should that prove. It doesn't all of a sudden remove the guilt or culpability of homosexual sex.

 

[Everlasting33]

Does it not embarrass you to come across as so ignorant?

This is clearly Ad hominem since you are attacking me personally instead of simply addressing the issue.

What is the purpose to ask this question? To induce shame or embarrassment? Why does one need to feel embarrassed by ignorance? I don't know about you but I'd rather poke fun at ignorance (which we all have from time to time) than to condemn myself in the form of embarrassment.

 

[LightHorseman]

This is clearly Ad hominem since you are attacking me personally instead of simply addressing the issue.

What is the purpose to ask this question? To induce shame or embarrassment? Why does one need to feel embarrassed by ignorance? I don't know about you but I'd rather poke fun at ignorance (which we all have from time to time) than to condemn myself in the form of embarrassment.

One should not feel embarrassed by ignorance if one is making every effort to learn and reduce one's ignorance. If, on the other hand, one is ignorant and makes no effort to change this state of affairs, then one should indeed feel embarrassed. The "arrogance of ignorance", where people seem to find their limited and incorrect knowledge on a subject empowering, and to entitle them to be treated as experts on a subject (e.g. Jenny McCarthy vs. vaccination) is an absolute plague on modern society, and I sincerely believe is one of the greatest threats to our civilisation.

Whether a person falls into the "ignorant, but wants to learn", or the "ignorant and proud of it" camps is entirely up to the individual. Sometimes, however, it is helpful for external observers to remind us that ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Everlasting33]

Society. Which I guess still isn't strictly objective, but it does move out of the range of personal subjectivity.

So, is society the highest form of ethical objectivity?

Since lesbians don't have anal sex, and not all gay men have anal sex, I am not sure it is correct to say most homosexuals have anal sex.

I agree that there is speculation on my part, although I was unable to find online references to verify exact percentages.

Again, this is an argument (albeit, in my opinion, a weak one) against anal sex, and more specifically unsafe anal sex practices. They apply equally to heterosexual people who partake in anal sex. Nothing to do with homosexuality, especially when, as I mentioned, lesbians do not, generally, have anal sex.

Is the anus designed for sexual intercourse?

Sarcasm aside, I am merely observing that non-effeminate gay men exist in not-insignificant numbers.

Based on your experience, correct?

 

[LightHorseman]

Is the anus designed for sexual intercourse?

Please define what you mean by "designed"?

Biologically speaking, there ARE structures in the anal pasage that seem to have an exclusively sexual function. Further, there are numerous other structures that many people would say are not "designed" for sexual intercourse, but are used in an explicitly sexual fashion, most notably hands and mouths. So even if we were to go by an argument from "design", then you find yourelf with rather a difficult problem... if we condemn homosexuality because the anus wasn't "designed" for sex, should we not be equally condemnatory of manual and oral sex as well?

 

[Vale Tudo]

The problem I have with these types of claim that anal sex causes harm is that it total ignores the similar "harm" that can be caused by vaginal sex. For example, vaginal sex raises a woman's risk of cervical cancer likely more than 4000% (as it is an STD, and this is a big enough thread we've even developed a vaccine to combat it). Yet, for some reason when people bring up the "risks" of anal sex they don't bring up the similar risks caused by vaginal sex so that we can compare the "harm". And, as for lesbians, while they have a higher percentage of things like breast cancer and ovarian cancer, the cause of this higher risk has not yet been determined -- it does not necessarily have anything to do with the type of sex they like to have. And even abstinence has risks, as men who are abstinent are at a far greater risk of prostate cancer.

It really isn't surprising to me that after presenting not one shred of evidence that there is any biological difference in homosexuals at birth, that this thread has turned into a discussion about what form of sex "harms more". Anal sex is unnatural and is not what our bodies were intended for, unless of course you don't have the option of doing what our bodies were intended for.

As far as drug abuse, alcohol, and tabacco abuse, there have been studies that indicate these are a result with the way society has treated homosexuals and nothing to do with sexual orientation. Further, recent studies have found these abuse issues are declining in younger homosexuals.

Based on what? This isn't the civil rights movement where gays have to sit in the back of the bus, so don't act like being a homosexual makes someone an oppressed "race" that has been abused for decades forcing them to turn to drug use, that's simply ridiculous. The number of crimes committed against homosexuals based purely on their sexuality pales in comparison to the violence we see as a result of racial tension every day, but using your logic you'd have to believe it if a minority told you they were driven to abuse drugs and alcohol, you know, since it was a result of their "treatment" in your view. The majority of our nation does not approve of homosexual behavior. We belief they have the right to chose this behavior, but do not agree with it. The homosexual movement defines tolerance as approval, therefore being intolerant of common disagreement regarding their lifestyle. Complete hypocrisy.

Last, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health does not seem like a non-biased source. Some of their claims (such as claiming that homosexuals "rational and moral restraint to the deleterious undertakings of those individuals have fallen") are editorial and subjective rather than based on any real science. Further, they appear at heart to be an "abstinence only" supporter, claiming that there is no benefit to condoms in lowering risk of HPV and other STDs (which is contradicts medical research).

Disagreement does not equal bias. If you posted something that supports your view, and then I find out that, shockingly, the author also supports that view, would it be fair to call it all biased? Of course not. People have view and that does not make there points illegitimate, it is to be expected.

If it is partially based on biological predispositions, then how is it dysfunctional?

False dilemma. If something is based on biological predispositions, that does not mean it cannot also be dysfunctional.

And as pointed out there really aren't that many homosexual men that speak and act like women. Even your own source, which is from 1962 (and as such, highly suspect), claims that it is no more than a third of homosexuals that act effeminate. Even if you are correct in that one third of gay men do have a gender identity confusion (which you have not come close to showing evidence for), how then is the homosexuality of the other two thirds of gays explained?

Absurd. Effeminate behavior is rampant in the male homosexual community. This is simply a baseless contention. Homosexuals literally change their behavior to fit in with their surrounding community. Watching any gay parade, protest, or speaking to homosexuals will make this clearly apparent. There is a physiological reason why so many homosexuals dress and act in ways that are different than the way that their gender traditionally does.

Again, false dilemma. Stating that one third of homosexuals have gender identity confusion does not disqualify common explanations for homosexual behavior. Furthermore, it doesn't have to and really is a separate but related fact. If you don't think homosexuals act like the opposite sex, then you are in denial and are ignoring basic observation.

Not to mention, the vast majority of crossdressers are heterosexual.

Irrelevant.

 

[Vale Tudo]

Please define what you mean by "designed"?

Biologically speaking, there ARE structures in the anal pasage that seem to have an exclusively sexual function. Further, there are numerous other structures that many people would say are not "designed" for sexual intercourse, but are used in an explicitly sexual fashion, most notably hands and mouths. So even if we were to go by an argument from "design", then you find yourelf with rather a difficult problem... if we condemn homosexuality because the anus wasn't "designed" for sex, should we not be equally condemnatory of manual and oral sex as well?

Pseudo-intellectual babble. The answer is no, and that is not the reason many disagree with homosexuality, so I don't see why you argue that. It is simply an observation drawing a logical conclusion based on our own bodies and their function. Also, this is a assumption that this would mean any other form of sex is "condemnable". It's time to stop putting words in other peoples mouths in order to stray farther from the topic at hand.

 

[Vale Tudo]

One should not feel embarrassed by ignorance if one is making every effort to learn and reduce one's ignorance. If, on the other hand, one is ignorant and makes no effort to change this state of affairs, then one should indeed feel embarrassed. The "arrogance of ignorance", where people seem to find their limited and incorrect knowledge on a subject empowering, and to entitle them to be treated as experts on a subject (e.g. Jenny McCarthy vs. vaccination) is an absolute plague on modern society, and I sincerely believe is one of the greatest threats to our civilisation.

Whether a person falls into the "ignorant, but wants to learn", or the "ignorant and proud of it" camps is entirely up to the individual. Sometimes, however, it is helpful for external observers to remind us that ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

That makes no counterpoint against the claim that your post was an ad hominem.

 

[Everlasting33]

One should not feel embarrassed by ignorance if one is making every effort to learn and reduce one's ignorance. If, on the other hand, one is ignorant and makes no effort to change this state of affairs, then one should indeed feel embarrassed. The "arrogance of ignorance", where people seem to find their limited and incorrect knowledge on a subject empowering, and to entitle them to be treated as experts on a subject (e.g. Jenny McCarthy vs. vaccination) is an absolute plague on modern society, and I sincerely believe is one of the greatest threats to our civilisation.

Whether a person falls into the "ignorant, but wants to learn", or the "ignorant and proud of it" camps is entirely up to the individual. Sometimes, however, it is helpful for external observers to remind us that ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

No doubt that we should not be satisfied with ignorance nor flaunt it. But I believe it is wrong to say that we should be embarrassed by it.

That is not to say that embarrassment is not a natural feeling but to apply "should" to the equation is self-defeating and only applying self-condemnation.

Instead of saying, "I should be embarrassed over my ignorance," one should direct their attention and energy in a more productive path, "What can I do to improve?"

Applying embarrassment almost always induces shame and guilt; which is foundational for self-hatred and withholding issues.

 

[Vale Tudo]

Given his insistance that they gays are out to get him and "trick" him into having gay sex... that seems a likely case.

Quote where the argument that we are being "tricked" in gay sex was made?

You seems to redefine other's arguments a lot, maybe you should try to make counterpoints without finding that necessary.

 

[Vale Tudo]

Would you give equal weight to data on the effects of smoking from a tobacco company or the Heart and Lung Association as you would the AMA?

Again, here we redefine bias because we don't like the results. With you line of though a scientist present an argument for evolution would be biased because he is a scientist who believes in evolution. Absurd.

So you do not support equality for homosexuals, but you treat them the same? How does that work, exactly?

Assumption. Make your own argument instead of restating others' incorrectly.

 

[LightHorseman]

That makes no counterpoint against the claim that your post was an ad hominem.

Um... I wasn't the one who made the alleged ad hom... but thanks for butting in.

 

[LightHorseman]

No doubt that we should not be satisfied with ignorance nor flaunt it. But I believe it is wrong to say that we should be embarrassed by it.

That is not to say that embarrassment is not a natural feeling but to apply "should" to the equation is self-defeating and only applying self-condemnation.

Instead of saying, "I should be embarrassed over my ignorance," one should direct their attention and energy in a more productive path, "What can I do to improve?"

Applying embarrassment almost always induces shame and guilt; which is foundational for self-hatred and withholding issues.

I don't knherently disagree with anything you just said, I just thought it was a good point to submit my thoughts on the issue. I don't feel that you yourself are proud of your ignorance, but a great many are, and it is a trend that disturbs me greatly.

 

[LightHorseman]

Pseudo-intellectual babble. The answer is no, and that is not the reason many disagree with homosexuality, so I don't see why you argue that. It is simply an observation drawing a logical conclusion based on our own bodies and their function. Also, this is a assumption that this would mean any other form of sex is "condemnable". It's time to stop putting words in other peoples mouths in order to stray farther from the topic at hand.

Whats did I say that is incorrect?

Are hands designed for sexual intercourse?

Are mouths designed for sexual intercourse?

Are anuses designed for sexual intercourse?

If the answer is yes, then no problem. If the answer is no, then someone needs to explain why we treat them differently.

 

[LightHorseman]

Quote where the argument that we are being "tricked" in gay sex was made?

You seems to redefine other's arguments a lot, maybe you should try to make counterpoints without finding that necessary.

Feel free to go back through PC-Fs archive... he repeatedly makes claims about homosexuals attempting to "trick" both him and young people in general into having homosexual sex. No, I'm not even paraphrasing. Knock yourself out.