What science says about homosexuality

[Fenny the Fox]

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.

Although I tend to hate them, I am going to do it anyway: an appeal from experience/anecdote.

I recently went to a friend's graduation party. I was among around 8 total guys and 5 girls.2 guys were gay, 3 were bi, the others straight/un-identifying. Of the girls, I know 2 were bi; I don't know about the others.

I can guarantee that, were all of us to be there and not tell you, you could likely not figure out who was gay/straight/bi/whatever. None of the guys "act like girls" or dress as such etc; and the same for the girls.

Stereotypes really should be avoided, don't you think?

 

[Skaloop]

Stereotypes really should be avoided, don't you think?

But how else are we supposed to judge people who are "different" without knowing anything else about them?

 

[Everlasting33]

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.

But this is potential harm. Furthermore, this accounts for irresponsibility and personal dilemmas, not polygamy in and of itself.

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.

I believe morals are also absolutes. However, if you are a moral relativist, then can there be objectivity?

Which is an argument against anal sex, not homosexuality.

Anal sex is strictly homosexual and the anus was not designed for sexual intercourse.

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

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?

Unfortunately, we do not have the research that is needed to solidify our opinions, however, my opinions (like yours) are still valuable. From a psychological perspective, it may suggest that these men and women have identified with the opposite sex that invalidates their true sex. Perhaps some may feel shame for being a man or woman. It's ironic how some lesbian women find men disgusting but then they dress and act like one and may be the "man" in the relationship. Why is that? I suspect there is some psychological damage that isn't being addressed or even acknowledged.

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

There's a difference between a woman that likes sports and is an engineer and a woman who dresses, speaks, and behaves like a man and has sexual relations with a woman. One is a personality difference and another is the overall depiction of a human being. The way she thinks, behaves, relates and interacts.

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

Simply my opinion upon research. But, I am pursuing to be a psychologist and I would like to be able to research homosexuality and examine the psychological roots of it. However, even if I were to find evidence to substantiate my opinions, I would still be met with, "well your just bias" or something like that! I try to play devil's advocate before I post to better prepare me

 

[Everlasting33]

Although I tend to hate them, I am going to do it anyway: an appeal from experience/anecdote.

I recently went to a friend's graduation party. I was among around 8 total guys and 5 girls.2 guys were gay, 3 were bi, the others straight/un-identifying. Of the girls, I know 2 were bi; I don't know about the others.

I can guarantee that, were all of us to be there and not tell you, you could likely not figure out who was gay/straight/bi/whatever. None of the guys "act like girls" or dress as such etc; and the same for the girls.

Stereotypes really should be avoided, don't you think?

I understand that my argument isn't foul-proof but it is interesting that many homosexuals do have the stereotypical mannerisms, etc.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I understand that my argument isn't foul-proof but it is interesting that many homosexuals do have the stereotypical mannerisms, etc.

Again you state the same, but can you provide some backing argument for it? You claim it is your observance that many homosexuals have these stereotypical features, but I see no attempt to back that statement: neither by researched information or personal observance.

As for anal sex being strictly homosexual...that is an outright lie. And if not, then an extremely misinformed notion that you should remedy before you continue discussion about it, my friend.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

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.

The body reacts to the mind. What about a study about the bodies of ex gays? I bet you will see them to be quite straight and normal. Curious!? That would seem to suggest that we are what we think. Our bodies only react and show what we think, not what we are. If we are different later, our bodies have to be different later as well. The mind is the powerful thing here and should be the one to be studied.

It is hard to realize it, but what is one's proof is another's doubt (debunk). What is one's treasure is another's trash. The mind is the changeable part of reality that people forget. I guess because it is connected too closely to the soul (the real being within). Have a great day.

 

[Skaloop]

But this is potential harm. Furthermore, this accounts for irresponsibility and personal dilemmas, not polygamy in and of itself.

That's why I said it was possibly harmful.

I believe morals are also absolutes. However, if you are a moral relativist, then can there be objectivity?

Yes.

Anal sex is strictly homosexual and the anus was not designed for sexual intercourse.

<staff edit>

Unfortunately, we do not have the research that is needed to solidify our opinions, however, my opinions (like yours) are still valuable. From a psychological perspective, it may suggest that these men and women have identified with the opposite sex that invalidates their true sex. Perhaps some may feel shame for being a man or woman. It's ironic how some lesbian women find men disgusting but then they dress and act like one and may be the "man" in the relationship. Why is that? I suspect there is some psychological damage that isn't being addressed or even acknowledged.

Or, they just enjoy looking more "masculine" (just as some people like to dress up for no reason, or some people prefer to wear black all the time or some people always want to wear purple) while still preferring the feminine appearance in their partners. It's all speculation on both our parts. And as such, should not define social policy, especially when even if it is some psychological damage, that in itself is not enough to make something illegal or immoral or wrong.

You talk about gay people "associating with the opposite sex" but you must know that many many gay men are not feminine at all. There are the so-called gym rats, who are very muscular. The bears, who are generally large and hairy. Even those are the rare extremes; most gay men are no different than straight men, aside from their sexual preferences.

There's a difference between a woman that likes sports and is an engineer and a woman who dresses, speaks, and behaves like a man and has sexual relations with a woman. One is a personality difference and another is the overall depiction of a human being. The way she thinks, behaves, relates and interacts.

What about a woman who dresses, speaks, and behaves like a man (whatever that means) and has sex with men? What about the dutiful wife in a dress and apron who cooks, cleans, and takes care of the kids while her wife is at work?

It's only an overall depiction of a human being because you are trying to make it one. In reality, it is not more definitive of a person than your sexual preferences. You are boiling down the extremely complex nature of a human being's behaviour into one defining trait of sexuality, but only if it's the sexuality you don't like.

Simply my opinion upon research. But, I am pursuing to be a psychologist and I would like to be able to research homosexuality and examine the psychological roots of it. However, even if I were to find evidence to substantiate my opinions, I would still be met with, "well your just bias" or something like that! I try to play devil's advocate before I post to better prepare me

Cool. I have a psychology degree myself. Playing Devil's Advocate can certainly be fun.

 

[Everlasting33]

Again you state the same, but can you provide some backing argument for it? You claim it is your observance that many homosexuals have these stereotypical features, but I see no attempt to back that statement: neither by researched information or personal observance.

Here is researched information but I will be expecting the response, "this is from a biased source." Nothing is good enough!

"Effeminate mannerisms

According to the DSMIV, boys "with Gender Identity Disorder often show marked feminine mannerism and speech patterns." Rekers offers an example:

Craig behaved in a way that was a caricature of femininity. He frequently displayed a weak, limp writs and he swayed his hips when he walked. The ways in which he held his arms and the delicate ways he carefully folded his legs were all an imitation of a hyperfeminine role. It was remarkable how he could mimic all these subtle feminine behaviors as though he were a woman. (Rekers 1982, p.132)
​

The GID boy's mannerisms are frequently described by observers as "girl-like" or "effeminate." However, the mannerism observed are not typical of normal little girls at play, who often exhibit a high degree of androgynous behavior, physical freedom and ease of movement. Bieber points out that "effeminate" behaviors--tightly held shoulders, elbows to the sides, arms not swinging naturally with footsteps, limp wrist, hand-on-hip--are not copies of the natural mannerism of either girls or adult women. According to Bieber, the function of effeminacy may be a declaration of nonaggressiveness, since the most effeminate gestures are confined and close to the body, in contrast to normal expansive male gestures. Arno Karlen commenting on Bieber writes:

effeminacy seems to be a misleadingly named body language that combines reversal of masculine signals, nonassertive signs and some elements of burlesqued femininity to announce, "I won't fight, I'm not dangerous--if necessary, not even a man.(Karlen, p.579)
​

Moberly holds that effeminacy in the male homosexual results from a "defensive detachment from the parent of the same sex" which blocks the normal identificatory process. According to Moberly this is not a "genuine identification with the opposite sex, but rather a disidentification with the same sex." (Moberly, p.8)



Childhood experiences of homosexual men : Feeling different

As for anal sex being strictly homosexual...that is an outright lie. And if not, then an extremely misinformed notion that you should remedy before you continue discussion about it, my friend.

Men and women can have anal sex but it is often homosexual men who engage in anal sex and who are often diagnosed with anal cancer:

Anal cancer precursors common in homosexual men | OncoLink Cancer Resources

The anus is not designed for sexual intercourse.

 

[Skaloop]

Here is researched information but I will be expecting the response, "this is from a biased source." Nothing is good enough!

"Effeminate mannerisms

According to the DSMIV, boys "with Gender Identity Disorder often show marked feminine mannerism and speech patterns." Rekers offers an example:

Craig behaved in a way that was a caricature of femininity. He frequently displayed a weak, limp writs and he swayed his hips when he walked. The ways in which he held his arms and the delicate ways he carefully folded his legs were all an imitation of a hyperfeminine role. It was remarkable how he could mimic all these subtle feminine behaviors as though he were a woman. (Rekers 1982, p.132)
​

The GID boy's mannerisms are frequently described by observers as "girl-like" or "effeminate." However, the mannerism observed are not typical of normal little girls at play, who often exhibit a high degree of androgynous behavior, physical freedom and ease of movement. Bieber points out that "effeminate" behaviors--tightly held shoulders, elbows to the sides, arms not swinging naturally with footsteps, limp wrist, hand-on-hip--are not copies of the natural mannerism of either girls or adult women. According to Bieber, the function of effeminacy may be a declaration of nonaggressiveness, since the most effeminate gestures are confined and close to the body, in contrast to normal expansive male gestures. Arno Karlen commenting on Bieber writes:

effeminacy seems to be a misleadingly named body language that combines reversal of masculine signals, nonassertive signs and some elements of burlesqued femininity to announce, "I won't fight, I'm not dangerous--if necessary, not even a man.(Karlen, p.579)
​

Moberly holds that effeminacy in the male homosexual results from a "defensive detachment from the parent of the same sex" which blocks the normal identificatory process. According to Moberly this is not a "genuine identification with the opposite sex, but rather a disidentification with the same sex." (Moberly, p.8)



Childhood experiences of homosexual men : Feeling different

So what if they are effeminate in their mannerisms or speak in specific patterns? What does that matter to whether they should be allowed to marry? Many men have high-pitched voices and marry without any trouble.

Men and women can have anal sex but it is often homosexual men who engage in anal sex and who are often diagnosed with anal cancer:

Anal cancer precursors common in homosexual men | OncoLink Cancer Resources

Which is, again, an argument against anal sex. But not all gay people have anal sex, while many straight people do. So that is still not a reason against homosexuality.

The anus is not designed for sexual intercourse.

Nothing but the penis and vagina are "designed" for sexual intercourse. Yet billions of people use other things for sex even if they are not intended for that. Why single out only homosexuals?

 

[quatona]

Afaik homosexuality isn&#180;t a GID.

 

[Everlasting33]

Yes.

Who determines the objectivity?

<staff edit>

<staff edit>

Or, they just enjoy looking more "masculine" (just as some people like to dress up for no reason, or some people prefer to wear black all the time or some people always want to wear purple) while still preferring the feminine appearance in their partners. It's all speculation on both our parts. And as such, should not define social policy, especially when even if it is some psychological damage, that in itself is not enough to make something illegal or immoral or wrong.

You are correct that its mutual speculation and more research is needed within the field of sexuality.

You talk about gay people "associating with the opposite sex" but you must know that many many gay men are not feminine at all. There are the so-called gym rats, who are very muscular. The bears, who are generally large and hairy.

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

Cool. I have a psychology degree myself. Playing Devil's Advocate can certainly be fun.

Are you pursuing a masters?

 

[Everlasting33]

So what if they are effeminate in their mannerisms or speak in specific patterns?

Because.. "Moberly holds that effeminacy in the male homosexual results from a "defensive detachment from the parent of the same sex" which blocks the normal identificatory process. According to Moberly this is not a "genuine identification with the opposite sex, but rather a disidentification with the same sex." (Moberly, p.8) "

Which is, again, an argument against anal sex. But not all gay people have anal sex, while many straight people do. So that is still not a reason against homosexuality.

I have listed harmful consequences of homosexuality but they are discredited because they are simply consequences. But the harmful consequences of polygamy are accepted. Does this make any sense?

Nothing but the penis and vagina are "designed" for sexual intercourse. Yet billions of people use other things for sex even if they are not intended for that.

Well, this is just an appeal to majority.

<staff edit>

 

[David Brider]

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

I doubt you could even make a case for most homosexuals being sexually active, much less whether or not they specifically engage in anal sex.

David.

 

[David Brider]

Because.. "Moberly holds that effeminacy in the male homosexual results from a "defensive detachment from the parent of the same sex" which blocks the normal identificatory process. According to Moberly this is not a "genuine identification with the opposite sex, but rather a disidentification with the same sex." (Moberly, p.8) "

And is this Moberly chap reliable? My own experience of homosexual men is that whilst there are a few who conform to the stereotype of effeminacy, they are very much in a minority.

I have listed harmful consequences of homosexuality...

No, you've listed harmful consequences of certain forms of sexual activity. Homosexuality isn't a form of sexual activity, it's a sexual orientation.

David.

 

[LightHorseman]

Because.. "Moberly holds that effeminacy in the male homosexual results from a "defensive detachment from the parent of the same sex" which blocks the normal identificatory process. According to Moberly this is not a "genuine identification with the opposite sex, but rather a disidentification with the same sex." (Moberly, p.8) "



I have listed harmful consequences of homosexuality but they are discredited because they are simply consequences. But the harmful consequences of polygamy are accepted. Does this make any sense?





Well, this is just an appeal to majority.

"The anus is not designed for penetration. The vagina has a natural lubrication that helps facilitate penetration, but the anus has no similar system. In addition, the tissue of the anus is thin and can easily tear.."


TeenHealthFX - Answers - What Is Anal Sex?

Hi Steeler, did you ever get a chance to read my last to you?

 

[LightHorseman]

Originally Posted by Steelerbred33

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

My homosexual flat mate and her partner both claim never to have had anal sex, nor to have any interest in it whatsoever. They must be a tiny minority I guess.
​

 

[Andreusz]

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?

Why do you refer to Steelerbred as 'he'? Do you have problems with sexual identity?

 

[LightHorseman]

Why do you refer to Steelerbred as 'he'? Do you have problems with sexual identity?

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

 

[Maren]

Could you elaborate? Thanks.



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. "

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.

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.

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).

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

As for this idea of Mr. Firehammer writing in "Michigan's statewide gay newspaper", I find it strange that I can't find a citation for the article. The reason it is mentioned that it was published in "Michigan's statewide gay newspaper" is to make assertion that Mr. Firehammer is some type of gay activist. Yet, from the search I've been doing, I can't find any evidence of that. Rather, the quotes seem to come from Reginald Firehammer's book, The Hijacking of a Philosophy: Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Further, the source given for the article, which appears to be an excerpt of the book, is from The Autonomist, a Libertarian website based on the ideas of Ayn Rand. The book, rather than being pro-gay as is inferred by claiming it comes from a gay newspaper, is actually anti-gay.

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.

If it is partially based on biological predispositions, then how is it 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.

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?

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

 

[Maren]

Here is researched information but I will be expecting the response, "this is from a biased source." Nothing is good enough!

"Effeminate mannerisms

According to the DSMIV, boys "with Gender Identity Disorder often show marked feminine mannerism and speech patterns." Rekers offers an example:

Craig behaved in a way that was a caricature of femininity. He frequently displayed a weak, limp writs and he swayed his hips when he walked. The ways in which he held his arms and the delicate ways he carefully folded his legs were all an imitation of a hyperfeminine role. It was remarkable how he could mimic all these subtle feminine behaviors as though he were a woman. (Rekers 1982, p.132)
​

The GID boy's mannerisms are frequently described by observers as "girl-like" or "effeminate." However, the mannerism observed are not typical of normal little girls at play, who often exhibit a high degree of androgynous behavior, physical freedom and ease of movement. Bieber points out that "effeminate" behaviors--tightly held shoulders, elbows to the sides, arms not swinging naturally with footsteps, limp wrist, hand-on-hip--are not copies of the natural mannerism of either girls or adult women. According to Bieber, the function of effeminacy may be a declaration of nonaggressiveness, since the most effeminate gestures are confined and close to the body, in contrast to normal expansive male gestures. Arno Karlen commenting on Bieber writes:

effeminacy seems to be a misleadingly named body language that combines reversal of masculine signals, nonassertive signs and some elements of burlesqued femininity to announce, "I won't fight, I'm not dangerous--if necessary, not even a man.(Karlen, p.579)
​

Moberly holds that effeminacy in the male homosexual results from a "defensive detachment from the parent of the same sex" which blocks the normal identificatory process. According to Moberly this is not a "genuine identification with the opposite sex, but rather a disidentification with the same sex." (Moberly, p.8)



Childhood experiences of homosexual men : Feeling different





Men and women can have anal sex but it is often homosexual men who engage in anal sex and who are often diagnosed with anal cancer:

Anal cancer precursors common in homosexual men | OncoLink Cancer Resources

The anus is not designed for sexual intercourse.

Your problem here is that people with GID are not homosexual. Even those that prefer the same-sex (to the sex they were born) do not have an interest in gays -- nor do gays have any real interest in those with GID.

And, you are correct, you can't claim much scientific evidence from a paper that is using Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic by E. Moberly as it's source for these claims.