What science says about homosexuality

[quatona]

That's what was thought in ancient Greece and Rome too. And here we are yet again.

I think it´s high time for you to present some sort of solid evidence for a causal connection between homosexuality and the end of a society - beyond a few handselected anecdotes that suggest a correlation if you don´t look too close.

Something about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? How's that go?

Besides being tolerant towards homosexuality these societies were also tolerant towards religion. Careful with concluding from correlation on causation - it can give you the funniest results.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I think it´s high time for you to present some sort of solid evidence for a causal connection between homosexuality and the end of a society - beyond a few handselected anecdotes that suggest a correlation if you don´t look too close.

Intercollegiate Studies Institute - ISI Books - Family and Civilization

Published in 1947:


Family and Civilization is the magnum opus of Carle Zimmerman, a distinguished sociologist who taught for many years at Harvard University. In this unjustly forgotten work Zimmerman demonstrates the close and causal connections between the rise and fall of different types of families and the rise and fall of civilizations, particularly ancient Greece and Rome, medieval and modern Europe, and the United States. Zimmerman traces the evolution of family structure from tribes and clans to extended and large nuclear families to the small nuclear families and broken families of today. And he shows the consequences of each structure for the bearing and rearing of children; for religion, law, and everyday life; and for the fate of civilization itself. Originally published in 1947, this compelling analysis predicted many of today’s cultural and social controversies and trends, including youth violence and depression, abortion and homosexuality, the demographic collapse of Europe and of the West more generally, and the displacement of peoples.

//////////////

Also: Gay marriage, family and civilization - Crunchy Con

Homosexuality has been presented as a symptom of moral decay. The end of things are not far behind the embracing of it. If you look at the rise of gay activism, it took the destruction of established and accepted morals, the implementation of humanist ideology, the rise of sexual permissiveness, the demise of the family unit, and now the celebration of anything goes.

Besides being tolerant towards homosexuality these societies were also tolerant towards religion.

Rome was not tolerant of Christians and Jews when there were homosexual rulers in place. Nero and Hadrian took wrath upon Bible believers.

Careful with concluding from correlation on causation - it can give you the funniest results.

Or very, very sad ones.

 

[quatona]

That´s your sort of solid evidence, eh?

 

[Skaloop]

That´s your sort of solid evidence, eh?

Hey, if it was solid in '47, it's solid now.

 

[apersonsaperson]

Also, HOmosexuality is accepted in most parts of Europe. Then again, there's a general more open attitude sexually throughout most of Europe.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Also, HOmosexuality is accepted in most parts of Europe. Then again, there's a general more open attitude sexually throughout most of Europe.

The rise and fall and rise again and fall . . .

 

[Everlasting33]

There is a little link towards the top that says 'from here' and it leads to NARTH.

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

Me, of course.

Really? I thought it was me

So you support same sex marriage?

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

Yes and no. And that is the basis of these discussions of morality for me, really. I look at it as 'no harm, no foul'. If somethings harms someone, it is wrong unless the harm caused prevents a larger harm. Moral relativity at its finest, no?

Homosexuality may well cause some small harm upon society at large. I don't think so, nor has anyone shown me where this is the case, but it may. I think the harm done to homosexuals and society at large by keeping them as second class citizens greatly out weighs the small harm homosexuality possibly causes.

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

I wasn't phrasing it that to elicit any emotional response. I phrased it that way because that is how I see it.

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.

In the same way that not smoking is healthy.

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.

 

[KCKID]

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.

While this is such a taboo issue I think if the facts were known (of course, very few would confess if asked) man/woman sexual attraction to 'underage people' is more common than one might expect. It may not be 'healthy' but it may be seen as 'natural' for some. Most, of course, don't act on these feelings.

 

[Everlasting33]

Sorry Steeler, I missed your post.

I suffer from a condition called "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". This condition stems directly from traumatic experiences I have experienced. They aren't particularly my fault, they certainly weren't natural, the condition has changed traits of my personality, and I require concessions be made.
So... due to traumatic experiences, I have a condition, and I require concessions, most of which most people are more than happy to accomodate. Some homosexuals are homosexual due to traumatic experiences, and they require concessions. Why should people be any less prepared to grant homosexuals those concessions than they are prepared to grant them to me? I don't see the difference. Discredit? Moi? I never did any such thing! Right there in my quoted statement I clearly said it is a fact that trauma CAN result in homosexual traits. However, while trauma CAN account for homosexuality in some cases, there is almost certainly a genetic predisposition in those cases to begin with, and further, for the majority of homosexuals, they are so oriented due to genetics predisposition and healthy nurture, not necessarily trauma.

In the simplest of arguments, I believe God made man for woman and woman for man (human anatomy for example). Even after trauma, the ideal is man and woman, not man for man or woman for woman. I mean, that is how simple it becomes for me and I truly believe that the sexes complement each other.

We are more familiar with the negative effects of traumatic, abusive and neglectful environments on children, because these are the ones most closely studied. But in terms of more general "nurture influences", the short answer is, we just don't know. Does an environment with a greater emphasis on music, bright colours and literature make someone more inteligent? Possibly, some would even say probably... but no one knows for certain. And thats for INTELIGENCE which is a great deal more studied than homosexuality.

I agree that more research is needed to have more accurate conclusions.

 

[Everlasting33]

How does this prove that homosexuality causes harm?

Do you base your ethics on harm?

 

[Skaloop]

Do you base your ethics on harm?

Don't you?

 

[Everlasting33]

Don't you?

I am waiting for an answer first before I respond.

 

[Skaloop]

I am waiting for an answer first before I respond.

Why? How does their answer affect your answer?

(also, sorry about the Penguins tonight.)

 

[Everlasting33]

Why? How does their answer affect your answer?

(also, sorry about the Penguins tonight.)

Well, it depends on their answer. I guess I will explain to you.

Nearly every atheist on here advocates abortion and homosexuality.

However, doesn't abortion cause harm to the fetus? Harm is involved. However, most don't seem to mind the harm in this context.

Why the picking and choosing? If you are going to say that harm determines ethics, then why does this not apply to abortion?

(Yeah, a bummer. I don't understand why we were so bad tonight. But hopefully Fleury will redeem himself at Mellon Arena).

 

[Skaloop]

Well, it depends on their answer. I guess I will explain to you.

Nearly every atheist on here advocates abortion and homosexuality.

Well, I personally don't exactly advocate abortion, not homosexuality. I accept both, and find nothing at all in any way wrong with the latter, but I do not quite advocate them.

However, doesn't abortion cause harm to the fetus? Harm is involved. However, most don't seem to mind the harm in this context.

It's not just harm, it's degree of harm, and the weighing of that harm against the harm of the alternative. I mean, there is harm on operating on a person suffering from appendicitis. But there is less harm in doing so than in not doing so and having the person die from it.

Why the picking and choosing? If you are going to say that harm determines ethics, then why does this not apply to abortion?

Abortion is a separate issue. Yes, there is harm to the fetus, but the debate comes down to whether that harm is lesser than the harm to the mother by disallowing abortion.

With homosexuality, there is no harm to anyone involved. Neither person in the homosexual couple is harmed, so the debate that is part of the abortion issue does not even apply. The abortion issue either harms the fetus by terminating it, or harms the mother by taking away her right to choose how her body is used. Homosexuality, on the other hand, harms neither party. So it's not really comparable.

 

[Everlasting33]

Well, I personally don't exactly advocate abortion, not homosexuality. I accept both, and find nothing at all in any way wrong with the latter, but I do not quite advocate them.



It's not just harm, it's degree of harm, and the weighing of that harm against the harm of the alternative. I mean, there is harm on operating on a person suffering from appendicitis. But there is less harm in doing so than in not doing so and having the person die from it.



[/i]Abortion is a separate issue. Yes, there is harm to the fetus, but the debate comes down to whether that harm is lesser than the harm to the mother by disallowing abortion.

With homosexuality, there is no harm to anyone involved. Neither person in the homosexual couple is harmed, so the debate that is part of the abortion issue does not even apply. The abortion issue either harms the fetus by terminating it, or harms the mother by taking away her right to choose how her body is used. Homosexuality, on the other hand, harms neither party. So it's not really comparable.

Harm is still involved. I mean, is it harmful for a man to have multiple wives? Is it harmful for a man or woman to have a sexual relationship with a 14 year old? Is it harmful to tell a white lie? Is it harmful to cheat?

There are obviously different types of harm and the degrees of it.

I am tempted to thwart this discussion in another direction that is off topic. But I know I shouldn't

 

[Skaloop]

Harm is still involved. I mean, is it harmful for a man to have multiple wives? Is it harmful for a man or woman to have a sexual relationship with a 14 year old? Is it harmful to tell a white lie? Is it harmful to cheat?

To your questions: Possibly, in almost all cases, possibly, yes.

And you say harm is still involved in homosexual relationships. What is that harm?

There are obviously different types of harm and the degrees of it.

Yes, but I still don't see the harm in a person being homosexual.

I am tempted to thwart this discussion in another direction that is off topic. But I know I shouldn't

I'm game. I say go for it. Sounds interesting...

 

[quatona]

Nearly every atheist on here advocates abortion and homosexuality.

If that´s your impression you have been misunderstanding most of them.

However, doesn't abortion cause harm to the fetus? Harm is involved. However, most don't seem to mind the harm in this context.

Well, firstly you may have a different idea of what constitutes "harm". Personally I´d prefer the term "causing suffering".
Secondly, harm is involved in pretty much every action. So the ethical challenge is never to avoid harm perfectly, but to weigh up the harming potential of the different options of behaviour.

Why the picking and choosing? If you are going to say that harm determines ethics, then why does this not apply to abortion?

I think it does.

 

[Everlasting33]

To your questions: Possibly, in almost all cases, possibly, yes.

Could you elaborate? Thanks.

And you say harm is still involved in homosexual relationships. What is that harm?

I do not base all of my ethics on harm alone. However, I do believe there is harm involved in homosexual relationships:

"It is such a rational examination that I intend to undertake in order to show that homosexuality is physically harmful to those who practice it. The scientific evidence supporting this assertion is overwhelming. Mr. Firehammer writes that "Michigan's statewide 'gay' newspaper,

Between the Lines, reports the risk of anal cancer 'soars' by nearly 4,000% for men who have intercourse with men. 'The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive.' Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as 'safe intercourse' to prevent this 'soaring' cancer risk ..." Even a publication devoted entirely to a homosexual readership is willing to admit that the disparities in disease contraction between homosexuals and heterosexuals are enormous. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported in 1999 that
- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."
- "Women who have intercourse with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."
- "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals." It seems that there is a correlation between the choice to pursue homosexuality and the choice to pursue other self-destructive behaviors as well, since the initial barriers of rational and moral restraint to the deleterious undertakings of those individuals have fallen. "

Furthermore, the very nature of the human organism as an entity whose properties have evolved over time will point to the harms of homosexuality. Evolution, as postulated by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book, The Origin of Species, entails a natural selection of those traits best suited to an organism's reproductive fitness, or the ability to pass on its genes. Through millions of years of natural selection in favor of organisms with the capacity to reproduce heterosexually, the mechanisms of heterosexual reproduction have become effectively safe, of course, when not taking into account environmental factors such as STDs."


Homosexuality: A Chosen Harm, Page 3 of 6 - Associated Content


I believe that homosexuality is the result of an combination of biological predispositions and environmental factors. I believe that these factors negatively influenced the progression of homosexuality, thus making it wrong and dysfunctional. Why do so many homosexual men speak and act like women? Why do so many homosexual women dress, look, and act like men? I believe there is gender identity confusion and maladjustment.

 

[Skaloop]

Could you elaborate? Thanks.

Sure. Multiple wives could possibly be harmful if, say, one wife is neglected or abused, or if (as seen in recent polygamy cases) young women are essentially forced into it. It need not be harmful if all parties are informed and agree freely, however.

A man or woman having a sexual relationship is harmful because a 14-year old does not generally have the maturity to enter into a sexual relationship, especially with an adult. Add to that the illegality, and the harm is evident.

Cheating is pretty much harmful because it is essentially lying, but not in the more innocent white-lie way of above. Cheating tends to take something from another person under false pretenses, which harms that person.

Telling a white lie may be harmful, but it may not if it covers up for a more harmful truth, or if it is a means to bring about more good. For example, telling a white lie so that the birthday girl doesn't figure out there is a surprise party waiting for her is not harmful.

I do not base all of my ethics on harm alone. However, I do believe there is harm involved in homosexual relationships:

"It is such a rational examination that I intend to undertake in order to show that homosexuality is physically harmful to those who practice it. The scientific evidence supporting this assertion is overwhelming. Mr. Firehammer writes that "Michigan's statewide 'gay' newspaper,

Between the Lines, reports the risk of anal cancer 'soars' by nearly 4,000% for men who have intercourse with men.

Which is an argument against anal sex, not homosexuality.

'The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive.' Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as 'safe intercourse' to prevent this 'soaring' cancer risk ..." Even a publication devoted entirely to a homosexual readership is willing to admit that the disparities in disease contraction between homosexuals and heterosexuals are enormous. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported in 1999 that
- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."
- "Women who have intercourse with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."
- "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals." It seems that there is a correlation between the choice to pursue homosexuality and the choice to pursue other self-destructive behaviors as well, since the initial barriers of rational and moral restraint to the deleterious undertakings of those individuals have fallen. "

Again, these are all arguments against promiscuity or irresponsible sexual behaviour, not homosexuality in and of itself.

Furthermore, the very nature of the human organism as an entity whose properties have evolved over time will point to the harms of homosexuality. Evolution, as postulated by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book, The Origin of Species, entails a natural selection of those traits best suited to an organism's reproductive fitness, or the ability to pass on its genes. Through millions of years of natural selection in favor of organisms with the capacity to reproduce heterosexually, the mechanisms of heterosexual reproduction have become effectively safe, of course, when not taking into account environmental factors such as STDs."

The bolded part is hilarious. "X is effectively safe, as long as you ignore all the ways in which X is not safe."

I believe that homosexuality is the result of an combination of biological predispositions and environmental factors. I believe that these factors negatively influenced the progression of homosexuality, thus making it wrong and dysfunctional. Why do so many homosexual men speak and act like women?

Is there something wrong with speaking like a woman? And how many gay men do so, anyway? Beyond stereotypes presented in the media, do you have stats on the real-world way in which gay men behave?

Why do so many homosexual women dress, look, and act like men?

Why do so many heterosexual men dress like women? Why do so many heterosexual women enjoy watching lesbian porn? Why do so many heterosexual women dress, look, and act like men?

Even if they do, so what? What's the problem with having a behaviour outside of the socially-defined gender roles? I like to cook; am I gay? My wife is better and handyman stuff around the house; is she a lesbian?

There are differences among and between genders. None of it has anything to do with sexuality.

I believe there is gender identity confusion and maladjustment.

And you're qualified to make that assessment because...