What science says about homosexuality

[Everlasting33]

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?

I go by the definition of design. Look it up if you like.


Is the anus designed for sexual intercourse?

 

[Skaloop]

So, is society the highest form of ethical objectivity?

I don't know. Maybe.

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

So we'll just set that aside, then.

Is the anus designed for sexual intercourse?

Is the hand? Is the mouth?

Are ears designed to hold up eyeglasses?

We can use parts of our body for things other than they were designed for.

Based on your experience, correct?

No, based on direct observation. There are gay men who are quite masculine. If you are saying that there aren't, well, you'd be demonstrably wrong.

 

[Skaloop]

I go by the definition of design. Look it up if you like.


Is the anus designed for sexual intercourse?

No. So what? Sexual intercourse has a very specific definition, which would apply to penis/vagina penetration. But sexual acts are not restricted to penis/vagina penetration regardless of one's sexual preference.

Some straight people have anal sex. Some gay people have anal sex. What's the problem with the latter?

 

[ke1985]

No. So what? Sexual intercourse has a very specific definition, which would apply to penis/vagina penetration. But sexual acts are not restricted to penis/vagina penetration regardless of one's sexual preference.

Some straight people have anal sex. Some gay people have anal sex. What's the problem with the latter?

'

difference: sodomy

not everyone agrees that oral or anal sex is acceptable. Some people only approve of vaginal intercourse.

The anus is meant for waste removal and its actually harmful for intercourse.

 

[quatona]

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.

Yes, correct(provided there were any guilt or culpability, in the first place). It would merely pose severe problems for certain god concepts.

 

[Maren]

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.

Actually, there has been some evidence given that there are differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I believe someone previously mentioned differences in the brain between heterosexuals and homosexuals, also I have mentioned that currently there is research into how 50 or more genetic markers may be a factor in, or even cause sexual orientation (but that they are wanting to do further research before announcing any conclusions).

Further, the argument is not which type of sex does more harm. Rather, there is this claim that homosexual sex does certain types of harm while the same people making these claims are either unaware or ignoring that heterosexual sex also can be equally harmful. It's the double standard that is being pointed out.

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.

And here you present a false dilemma. Simply because homosexuals weren't slaves in this country or your claims that they don't have the same number of crimes committed against them as some races does not mean that discrimination and crimes do not occur because people are homosexual. First, I think you misunderstand just how much has changed for homosexuals. For example, when I was young homosexuals could be thrown in jail for little to no reason. You can find footage of police raids at gay bars, where the only "crime" was being in a bar with other men. In fact, the last of the laws outlawing homosexuality were invalidated less than a decade ago. So trying to claim this isn't a civil rights issue is false.

Further, there have been laws and constitutional amendments passed to deny civil rights to gays. It is one of the things that Anita Bryant crusaded for in the Seventies, to prohibit homosexuals from having civil rights protections. As recently as 1992, the voters in Colorado passed an amendment that would deny civil rights protections to gays. It ended up being appealed to the Supreme Court (Romer v Evans), where it was ruled unconstitutional. In fact, the majority opinion stated, "Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests." It went on to state, " It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence." So, again, gays have been fighting for civil rights for most of my lifetime.

Further, as I pointed out, much of the problem with drug and alchohol abuse was with this generation that lived through people trying to deny them of actual civil rights -- the younger generation that has not lived through the same amount of discrimination are showing less alcohol and drug abuse.

As for hate crimes, it is true that the majority of hate crimes are committed on the basis of race. However, if you use the FBI statistics, homosexuals are statistically more likely to be victims of a hate crime. While the largest group of hate crimes occur on the basis of race (and we'll even assume that they all happened to Blacks, despite the fact that many likely were committed against Hispanics). Now, in 2007 (most recent statistics the FBI has on the web) 3,870 hate crimes were committed on the basis of race and 1,265 were committed on the basis of sexual orientation. However, as a rough estimate Blacks make up roughly 13.5% of the population and gays are typically estimated as no more than 2% of the population -- as such the hate crimes committed against a race should be at least 6.75 times more common than hate crimes against sexual orientation -- but they are scarcely more than 3 times higher. As such, the average gay likely has twice the likelihood of being the victim of a hate crime than a Black.

One other difference you may not have considered, most Blacks don't face prejudice in their own homes. By contrast, there are people here who have been disowned by parents for being gay. And, a rather interesting study from New Zealand (Fenaughty, John J (2000). Life on the seesaw: an assessment of suicide risk and resiliency for bisexual and gay male youth in Aotearoa / New Zealand), found that much of the increase in suicidal thoughts in gay youth are directly influenced by their families -- that it was often the families disapproval that caused gay youth to consider suicide.

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.

This is a group that claims to be a scientific organization. They are making claims based on their opinion that gays as a whole lack "moral restraint" (among other moral judgements). That is a value judgement, not something that can be scientifically supported. It doesn't matter if I agree with what they claim or not, the fact they are making moral judgements to support their logic in what is supposed to be a scientific paper invalidates the claims they make in that paper.

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

Because, as many here are so fond of stating, predispositions are not set in stone. Therefore, a predisposition cannot be a dysfunction. Though even the idea that homosexuality is a "dysfunction" is not actually supported. It is found not only in humans but in many other species of mammals. It is only a dysfunction if you consider procreation a requirement for all "animals", but the Bible doesn't even support that all people should procreate (such as Paul saying it is best if people do not marry).

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.

Sorry, but as I and others have pointed out, this is not true. The reason it is typically perceived this way is that the effeminate gays are the ones that tend to "stick out". If you pass five people on the street and they happen to be homosexual you will only notice, typically, if they are effeminate acting -- this leads to a perception that all gays are effeminate because those are typically the only ones that are noticed.

Further, there are straight guys that act effeminate. I have a brother-in-law, who people have asked me if he is gay (he acts very effeminately, has a high pitched voice and effeminate speech patterns) but is heterosexual and has been married for 25 years. Yet I'm sure there are plenty who have only seen him, but don't know him well, and are convinced he is gay.

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.

No, I'm not in denial -- though I do imagine I know far more gays than you do. Most gays, and the majority do not act effeminately. In fact, in an effort to "prove" gays are effeminate required the use of a study that is almost 50 years old and dates from a time when the survey was likely done in a prison among inmates locked up for homosexual behavior.

Further, that one third of gays act effeminately does not equal that they have gender identity, as you appear to try to claim. It is a theory put forth by organizations such as NARTH (a scientific organization that has done zero scientific research) but the theory has no actual evidence to support it. Rather, there is research showing that there are structural differences in the brains of homosexuals, which would imply that the differences are biologic in origin and not based on environmental factors.

Irrelevant.

Why? If 90+% of crossdressers are heterosexual, why is it that you dismiss their "gender identity" problems (though that is a bad term for both cross dressing and effeminate behavior) as irrelevant while claiming that the effeminate actions/dress of homosexuals is gender identity problems? It is a huge inconsistency in reasoning. If the "gender identity" problems are the cause of homosexuality, you would expect the vast majority of crossdressers (or at least a majority) to be gay.

 

[quatona]

Is the anus designed for sexual intercourse?

Is that the question we are going to ask about every body part and every action now, and from which we are going to draw ethical conclusions concerning the action?
If yes, the vast majority of human actions would have to be called immoral.
If no, the fact that you ask this question only in few selected instances tells me something.

 

[Maren]

Is that the question we are going to ask about every body part and every action now, and from which we are going to draw ethical conclusions concerning the action?
If yes, the vast majority of human actions would have to be called immoral.
If no, the fact that you ask this question only in few selected instances tells me something.

Perhaps we should. I definitely can tell that my hands were not meant to type on a computer keyboard -- I think we should outlaw them because of the harm these keyboards are documented to cause!

 

[ke1985]

Actually, there has been some evidence given that there are differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I believe someone previously mentioned differences in the brain between heterosexuals and homosexuals, also I have mentioned that currently there is research into how 50 or more genetic markers may be a factor in, or even cause sexual orientation (but that they are wanting to do further research before announcing any conclusions).

There is no genetic causation that has yet been found. Sorry.

Why? If 90+% of crossdressers are heterosexual,

Uhh, where did you get this figure???

 

[ke1985]

Is that the question we are going to ask about every body part and every action now, and from which we are going to draw ethical conclusions concerning the action?
If yes, the vast majority of human actions would have to be called immoral.
If no, the fact that you ask this question only in few selected instances tells me something.

Some Christians believe God made the vagina for sexual intercourse and the anus for waste removal. Of course you could use it for different things and you could argue that all day.

Straight and gay people have anal sex and it doesnt make it more wrong when gay men have sex. But its the point that God made man for woman and woman for man. Even if you do not believe in god, the anatomy of our bodies proves this.

 

[Andreusz]

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

I was saying that you don't have the beginnings of an understanding of the issue, therefore I was attacking your representaiton of 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 find ignorance embarrassing, which is why I try not to make ignorant statements.

 

[Andreusz]

. But its the point that God made man for woman and woman for man. Even if you do not believe in god, the anatomy of our bodies proves this.

No. Prostate gland.

 

[IzzyPop]

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.

Straw man, but good try. I avoid citing sources that have a horse in the race. I view any conclusion NARTH derives from a study with skepticism. I view any conclusion a pro-homosexuality group derives from a study with skepticism.

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

The argument made is logically incoreherent as it was stated. I was asking for clarification.

 

[LightHorseman]

I go by the definition of design. Look it up if you like.

If you use the dictionary definition of "design", then I contend that the human anus was not "designed" at all.

Is the anus designed for sexual intercourse?

If your question is "is sexual intercourse one of the functions the anus has evolved/been designed to accomodate", then the answer is yes.

 

[LightHorseman]

There is no genetic causation that has yet been found. Sorry.

Wanna bet?

 

[LightHorseman]

Some Christians believe God made the vagina for sexual intercourse and the anus for waste removal. Of course you could use it for different things and you could argue that all day.

Straight and gay people have anal sex and it doesnt make it more wrong when gay men have sex. But its the point that God made man for woman and woman for man. Even if you do not believe in god, the anatomy of our bodies proves this.

If you want to base your argument on this physiological argument, that is your right, of course.

However, I will point out that if you only use it to condemn homosexuals, then it appears to be a double standard. Why don't you condemn ALL anal sex, rather than make it an anti homosexual argument?

I'd also suggest that if "incorrect use" is the crux of your argument, it should also extend to manual and oral sex as well.

 

[ke1985]

Wanna bet?

There isn't any.

 

[LightHorseman]

There isn't any.

What do I win if I can link you to studies showing a genetic link to homosexuality?

 

[Everlasting33]

I was saying that you don't have the beginnings of an understanding of the issue

Hmmm. This isn't what you said. You specifically called me ignorant and this is a personal attack.

In another post, I explained my reason for my statement. I know that some heterosexuals engage in anal sex. I know that not all homosexuals engage in anal sex. However, I worded it differently than what I thought. It happens.

I find ignorance embarrassing, which is why I try not to make ignorant statements.

Perhaps this is why you feel the need to so quickly condemn others in which you self-identify.

 

[Ave Maria]

Personally, I definitely believe that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people were born that way. I mean, why would they choose to be that way? And honestly, what evidence do we have that the way they grew up or the environment that they grew up in really has an effect on it? I'm not sure that there is any evidence to that. If there is, somebody can feel free to PM me about it and let me know and I'll consider the evidence. However, without that evidence, I choose to believe that people are born with a set sexuality that is genetic.