Question:
Just by the way, there is lately one of those mad scientist/genius types who is doing work with viruses, and who speculates that a virus in early childhood causes homosexuality. I’m wishing I could remember where I read it (I read a lot) but I’m thinking it was an Atlantic issue.
*Anything* is better than the domineering mother/wimpy father crap. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
Not necessarily. I believe some of it also depends on some of the characteristics of the child. For example, if you were not a particularly sensitive child, you probably have less of a tendency to develop a homosexual orientation. Also, did you have any positive male role models outside of the family or within your extended family you looked up to and/or spent time with? This significantly directs toward a heterosexual orientation. Nope. I didn’t know English and was living in Ohio. My main contact was within my own family, a situation which didn’t really include any males. In my case, my father was a workaholic and I was bitter at him for it. As I got into the pre-pubescent stage, I put up a wall of resentment against most love he did try to show me and/or time he did try to spend with me on rare occasions. I did not want to be like him at all, for the most part. I did not identify with him. Then as I went into middle and high school and college, I did not identify with other males and only participated in loner sports like weightlifting. And did you "become" a homosexual? Generally, an absent or harsh father is a critical factor in the development of homosexual orientation, but as I stated above, there are some mitigating factors that may prevent it. You point to studies yourself indicating that this is at least partially genetic. Why do you continue to deny what you see before you? Jeff OK, here’s my problem. I was raised in a house with my grandma, mom, 2 sisters, a female dog, and a female cat. My dad was rarely around, and I was generally raised by the other others (all female). I was never treated that differently because I was a guy, everyone else (except my dad) freely changed, showered etc. around me. Shouldn’t I be as gay as pink confetti? Or at least bi-sexual? Jeff Thanks for the info. This topic (along with abortion and a couple of others) gets intense even when someone is simply looking for info and different perspectives. My observation, based on many years in the PC Silicon Valley working with and being friends with gay folks, is that most (not all) had seriously screwed up family lives. And the father seems to be a key. I would like to find out if my perspective has any research behind it. Thanks again. The pioneering person on the formation of the homosexual complex is Dr. Elizabeth Moberly from Oxford. She contends that the most important factor in the development of the homosexual complex is that within the first 5 years of a child’s life, if they do not bond significantly with their father if they are male, or with their mother if they are female, they often will develop a homosexual complex, which could mean just having feelings for the same sex or acting on them as well. I personally believe there are other factors as well, but this is the biggest by far, she believes. An excerpt and a URL, I believe, based on her pioneering book "Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic" is at the end of this post. See *** at the bottom. Her book is listed out of print at Amazon, but is still printed and can be gotten through Homosexuals Anonymous and many other groups. I am a recovering, Christian, male bisexual. I’ve had homosexual and heterosexual feelings since about puberty and never knew how to deal with the powerful homosexual feelings. I currently attend Homosexuals Anonymous chapter and for the first time in my life I feel like I am gaining control over my feelings and behaviors. I had a homosexual affair for about 6 months and although it was wonderful in some ways b/c it filled terrible emotional deficits within me, it was also extremely destructive b/c getting my emotional and sexual needs met was very addictive, at least for me. And, although many of my needs were met and I had very strong feelings for my partner, I still felt unfulfilled. The Bible is also very clear about homosexuality being a sin (as are many other things), so it was a major conflict Homosexuals Anonymous web site is at http://members.aol.com/hawebpage This URL will give you tons of information and support groups re: homosexuality and recovering from it (too bad Yahoo lists them under Anti-Lesbian and Gay, b/c they are not.) http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Fa… d_Practices/Christianity/Organizations/Lesbians__Gays__and_Bisexuals/Anti_L e sbian__Gay__and_Bisexual/ These groups are extremely loving and supportive and will help you change, but only if you want to. Nothing is forced on you. None of these groups in the Yahoo URL above are condemning of a person who is caught in homosexuality. You cannot help that you have homosexual feelings at present, but you can work to change them, if you want to change. And many people are successful. People in a homosexual struggle are not helped through condemnation. This was not the way of Jesus. People will only ever change from this, if they want to, through love and support. The road to change is not easy, but it is well worth it, especially if you want to be with God in heaven when you die and/or want to have a better chance at a successful marriage and have children. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying homosexual feelings will separate you from God. But if you fantasize about them a lot and/or act on them a lot, you will be separated from God, until you turn away. The groups above can help you turn away. Kinsey’s studies have in the last few years been called into serious question. See http://www.cwfa.org/library/education/1997-09-26_kinsey.shtml Not only was his methodology flawed and his statistics and results doctored to support what he wanted the outcome of the study to be, there is very strong evidence that hundreds of children were molested during the study. A psychiatrist whose last name is Nicolosi has been very successful in treating homosexuals. And before homosexuality was taken out of the manual on psychiatric disorders by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, there was a tremendous amount of data showing high success rates for overcoming homosexual feelings and behavior. The information is still available, but you have to dig a little more b/c it is not politically correct to say it is a disorder. The man who was most instrumental in getting it unlisted as a psychiatric disorder was Dr. Robert Spitzer. But in 1998, after reviewing much data on the success rates of homosexuals who have been able to change their orientation to a heterosexual one, if they want to change, Dr. Spitzer wanted to reopen the debate at the APA convention, but the debate was never allowed to occur b/c it was not politically correct. And in fact, when it was taken out of the manual on psyciatric disorders in 1973, there was no hard evidence to support its removal. It was just felt that people struggling with it would feel better if it was not listed as a disorder. If you read any study that has been done on homosexuality in terms of trying to prove a genetic link, the studies have been very small, often flawed, and cannot be duplicated, which is the hallmark of science. A great book on the subject of how the genetic science on homosexuality is very poor is by John Satinover and I think the book is called "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth". Although it was written in 1996, it is still quite good. For something more recent, you can find other books at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080105625X/o/qid=965082622/sr=… -7390119-7026256 Another excellent book is by Joe Dallas called "A Strong Delusion" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565074319/ref=sim_books/103-7… 7026256 Below is a review of it from Amazon: Excellent reading for pursuit of truth , January 23, 2000 Reviewer: chongnoi (see more about me) from Indiana An excellent book that clearly shows the deceptive theology of liberal theologians. What a powerful testimony written by a former practicing homosexual and former pastor of a "gay" church. Required
… read more »
Response:
<<Not necessarily. I believe some of it also depends on some of the characteristics of the child. For example, if you were not a particularly sensitive child, you probably have less of a tendency to develop a homosexual orientation. TRANSLATION: Sensitive boys are sissies who will grow up queer. << Also, did you have any positive male role models outside of the family or within your extended family you looked up to and/or spent time with? This significantly directs toward a heterosexual orientation. Translation: Withdrawn or absentee father makes the boy queer. This is the same old tired rhetoric. I really don’t mean to be rude or abrasive, but if you want to espouse the relation between absentee father, sensitivity, and homosexuality as fact, then would you please cite a study and please provide the correlation coefficient between homosexuality and the alleged causes. <<In my case, my father was a workaholic and I was bitter at him for it. As I got into the pre-pubescent stage, I put up a wall of resentment against most love he did try to show me and/or time he did try to spend with me on rare occasions. I did not want to be like him at all, for the most part. I did not identify with him. Then as I went into middle and high school and college, I did not identify with other males and only participated in loner sports like weightlifting. I’m sorry your father was an insensitive jerk. My father was good to me, and I’m gay. My brothers and sister are not. I have a maternal cousin and an uncle who are gay. I have other maternal cousins who are not. My Oma (maternal grandmother) had a brother who was gay. Does it run in the family? Possibly. However, it’s more important that my gay cousin is a fabulous musician and a good friend. It’s more interesting that my tone-deaf parents have 3 children with perfect pitch. It’s way more interesting how the "music gene" on the maternal side of my family just totally skips a generation, producing tone deaf people, while Oma and her brother both had perfect pitch and were great musicians, as are 3 of my cousins, my youngest brother, my sister, and I. Is the musical talent in our family genetic? Possibly, but who cares? The music is more important. The people themselves are most important. BTW…….when I was 20, my father sat me down and we had a chat. He was worried about me, because the whole family knew I was gay, but I hadn’t come out yet. They wanted me to know that I was loved and supported, and my father was "volunteered" to talk to me. Why am I mentioning all this personal crap? Because I want you to know that not all gay people are rejected, pathetic miscreants doomed to an emotionally barren existence, unable to love or be loved. lives fulfilling. I make music. If you need to go through reparative therapy, go for it, and don’t look back. documented technique, whose questionable success rate has not been verified by peer review or any other outside inspection. The lack of documented case study and follow-up does not speak well of the credibility of the therapists who use this method. If those therapists using this method had any substantial findings, those findings could be submitted to any number of medical and psychiatric journals for peer review, examination of research methodology, and replication of the therapy’s results by other therapists. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
Consider this: all the other siblings were raised in the same family as well and thus if twins have a significantly higher percentage of being gay then clearly genetics is a risk factor. Jeff
Well, I will actually give that it is both genetics AND environment because I think I read a study that 82% of homosexuals twins that are gay will have their twin siblings also be gay. While that’s significantly above average, it’s not 100% which it would be if it were completely genetics. Though I heard about it from my wife, and didn’t see the study myself so I don’t know how exactly it was conducted, etc. Such a study would only be valid if the identical twins were raised in completely different families.
Response:
It would certainly indicate something going on, but without a lot more info about the situation, I wouldn’t go down the genetic road just yet. The fact that far more identical twins are gay than other siblings or even fraternal twins isn’t convincing? It seems to me that you’ve seen enough to convince you that homosexuality is genetic. I’m still undecided about that. I do know that over the years, the vast majority of my gay friends and co-workers grew up in quite dysfunctional families. That observation has me wondering more about the environment than genetics. Of course, this also begs the question: Are they gay because of the dysfunctional families, or are the families dysfunctional because they couldn’t deal with a gay child? Yup, that and the fact that if you look close enough, most families are dysfunctional. The thing that bugs me about genetic reasons for any behavior is that it’s about to become the latest in a series of excuses. "I killed them because my grandmother fed me cod liver oil when I was a kid." "I can’t be expected to work for a living because my Dad drove an Edsel." "We lived in a green trailer house when I was a kid and that’s why my taxes are late." Self responsibility is being replaced with excuses. That statemend and paragraph made 1 big assumption: being homosexual is in some way bad. Why is it bad? All animals of the world have a homosexual portion. Why would homosexuals need to make excuses? Jeff
Consider this: all the other siblings were raised in the same family as well and thus if twins have a significantly higher percentage of being gay then clearly genetics is a risk factor. Jeff" Well, I will actually give that it is both genetics AND environment because I think I read a study that 82% of homosexuals twins that are gay will have their twin siblings also be gay. While that’s significantly above average, it’s not 100% which it would be if it were completely genetics. Though I heard about it from my wife, and didn’t see the study myself so I don’t know how exactly it was conducted, etc. Such a study would only be valid if the identical twins were raised in completely different families.
Response:
OK, here’s my problem. I was raised in a house with my grandma, mom, 2 sisters, a female dog, and a female cat. My dad was rarely around, and I was generally raised by the other others (all female). I was never treated that differently because I was a guy, everyone else (except my dad) freely changed, showered etc. around me. Shouldn’t I be as gay as pink confetti? Or at least bi-sexual? Jeff
Thanks for the info. This topic (along with abortion and a couple of others) gets intense even when someone is simply looking for info and different perspectives. My observation, based on many years in the PC Silicon Valley working with and being friends with gay folks, is that most (not all) had seriously screwed up family lives. And the father seems to be a key. I would like to find out if my perspective has any research behind it. Thanks again. The pioneering person on the formation of the homosexual complex is Dr. Elizabeth Moberly from Oxford. She contends that the most important factor in the development of the homosexual complex is that within the first 5 years of a child’s life, if they do not bond significantly with their father if they are male, or with their mother if they are female, they often will develop a homosexual complex, which could mean just having feelings for the same sex or acting on them as well. I personally believe there are other factors as well, but this is the biggest by far, she believes. An excerpt and a URL, I believe, based on her pioneering book "Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic" is at the end of this post. See *** at the bottom. Her book is listed out of print at Amazon, but is still printed and can be gotten through Homosexuals Anonymous and many other groups. I am a recovering, Christian, male bisexual. I’ve had homosexual and heterosexual feelings since about puberty and never knew how to deal with the powerful homosexual feelings. I currently attend Homosexuals Anonymous chapter and for the first time in my life I feel like I am gaining control over my feelings and behaviors. I had a homosexual affair for about 6 months and although it was wonderful in some ways b/c it filled terrible emotional deficits within me, it was also extremely destructive b/c getting my emotional and sexual needs met was very addictive, at least for me. And, although many of my needs were met and I had very strong feelings for my partner, I still felt unfulfilled. The Bible is also very clear about homosexuality being a sin (as are many other things), so it was a major conflict Homosexuals Anonymous web site is at http://members.aol.com/hawebpage This URL will give you tons of information and support groups re: homosexuality and recovering from it (too bad Yahoo lists them under Anti-Lesbian and Gay, b/c they are not.) http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Fa… d_Practices/Christianity/Organizations/Lesbians__Gays__and_Bisexuals/Anti_L e sbian__Gay__and_Bisexual/ These groups are extremely loving and supportive and will help you change, but only if you want to. Nothing is forced on you. None of these groups in the Yahoo URL above are condemning of a person who is caught in homosexuality. You cannot help that you have homosexual feelings at present, but you can work to change them, if you want to change. And many people are successful. People in a homosexual struggle are not helped through condemnation. This was not the way of Jesus. People will only ever change from this, if they want to, through love and support. The road to change is not easy, but it is well worth it, especially if you want to be with God in heaven when you die and/or want to have a better chance at a successful marriage and have children. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying homosexual feelings will separate you from God. But if you fantasize about them a lot and/or act on them a lot, you will be separated from God, until you turn away. The groups above can help you turn away. Kinsey’s studies have in the last few years been called into serious question. See http://www.cwfa.org/library/education/1997-09-26_kinsey.shtml Not only was his methodology flawed and his statistics and results doctored to support what he wanted the outcome of the study to be, there is very strong evidence that hundreds of children were molested during the study. A psychiatrist whose last name is Nicolosi has been very successful in treating homosexuals. And before homosexuality was taken out of the manual on psychiatric disorders by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, there was a tremendous amount of data showing high success rates for overcoming homosexual feelings and behavior. The information is still available, but you have to dig a little more b/c it is not politically correct to say it is a disorder. The man who was most instrumental in getting it unlisted as a psychiatric disorder was Dr. Robert Spitzer. But in 1998, after reviewing much data on the success rates of homosexuals who have been able to change their orientation to a heterosexual one, if they want to change, Dr. Spitzer wanted to reopen the debate at the APA convention, but the debate was never allowed to occur b/c it was not politically correct. And in fact, when it was taken out of the manual on psyciatric disorders in 1973, there was no hard evidence to support its removal. It was just felt that people struggling with it would feel better if it was not listed as a disorder. If you read any study that has been done on homosexuality in terms of trying to prove a genetic link, the studies have been very small, often flawed, and cannot be duplicated, which is the hallmark of science. A great book on the subject of how the genetic science on homosexuality is very poor is by John Satinover and I think the book is called "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth". Although it was written in 1996, it is still quite good. For something more recent, you can find other books at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080105625X/o/qid=965082622/sr=… -7390119-7026256 Another excellent book is by Joe Dallas called "A Strong Delusion" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565074319/ref=sim_books/103-7… 7026256 Below is a review of it from Amazon: Excellent reading for pursuit of truth , January 23, 2000 Reviewer: chongnoi (see more about me) from Indiana An excellent book that clearly shows the deceptive theology of liberal theologians. What a powerful testimony written by a former practicing homosexual and former pastor of a "gay" church. Required reading for all Christians, especially those within denominations where the topic of homosexual relations and "gay marriage" is a divisive issue up for debate. This book exposes the many myths and arguments by pro-homosexual lifestyle activists and gives hope to those struggling with homosexual tempations. Written with true compassion and love, in intelligent yet simple explanations. Great Reading and Information. Actually, a more recent book on the bad science along with many other issues and ultimately how to heal from homosexuality is by Richard Cohen called "Coming Out Straight : Understanding and Healing Homosexuality" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1886939411/qid=965084853/sr=1-… 390119-7026256 Furthermore, even the scientists themselves who have done the studies never say this is a definite cause. They say there may be a correlation, and at that will admit that more research must be done, b/c their genetic studies provide weak links. There are also issues of heredity and heritability. Something that is hereditary is something that is clearly passed down like eye or hair or skin color. Heritability simply indicates that there may be a correlation between one thing and another genetically. However, something as complex as heterosexual or homosexual behavior cannot be reduced to a single or even set of genes. There may be predispositions toward homosexuality in terms of the fact that homosexuals are often more intelligent, creative, and sensitive then the average population, but then environment comes into play. Even the twin studies do not prove anything conclusively. See http://www.culture-of-life.org/homo_olear_childhoodexperiences.htm "In a 1991 study, Bailey and Pillard compared identical, fraternal, non-twin and adopted brothers of adult homosexual men. They found that 52% of the identical twins, 22% of the fraternal twins, 11% of the adopted brothers, and 9.2% of the non-twin siblings were also homosexual. All these percentages are higher than the incidence of male homosexuality in the general population. The finding that fraternal twins were more than twice as likely as non-twin siblings to be homosexual suggests factors in the childhood experience plays a key part in the development of same-sex attraction, Bailey and Pillard concluded, "These data are consistent with heritable variation in prenatal brain development or in some aspect of physical appearance, that, by way of differential parental treatment, leads to differences in sexual orientation." and that "one assumption of the heritability analysis presented above is that there are no major genes for
… read more »
Response:
Also, this may help answer your question. It is from the same page I cited twice in my original post: http://www.culture-of-life.org/homo_olear_childhoodexperiences.htm "In looking at parental influences, it is important to remember that timing may be a crucial element. According to Daniel Brown: It is quite conceivable that there is a crucial period in the early years of a child for establishing the basic capacity for heterosexual adjustment. In this connection, evidence indicates that sex role differentiation and identity occur in most children between the ages of one and one-half and three, and that heterosexual stimulation and responsiveness develop between the third and sixth year of life. (Brown, 1963) If the father were absent after the boy had developed a confident masculine identity, the effect of his absence on gender identity might be minimal (although father absence could have negative effects in other areas)."
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The pioneering person on the formation of the homosexual complex is Dr. Elizabeth Moberly from Oxford. She contends that the most important factor in the development of the homosexual complex is that within the first 5 years of a child’s life, if they do not bond significantly with their father if they are male, or with their mother if they are female, they often will develop a homosexual complex, which could mean just having feelings for the same sex or acting on them as well. I personally believe there are other factors as well, but this is the biggest by far, she believes. An excerpt and a URL, I believe, based on her pioneering book "Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic" is at the end of this post. See *** at the bottom. Her book is listed out of print at Amazon, but is still printed and can be gotten through Homosexuals Anonymous and many other groups. I am a recovering, Christian, male bisexual. I’ve had homosexual and heterosexual feelings since about puberty and never knew how to deal with the powerful homosexual feelings. I currently attend Homosexuals Anonymous chapter and for the first time in my life I feel like I am gaining control over my feelings and behaviors. I had a homosexual affair for about 6 months and although it was wonderful in some ways b/c it filled terrible emotional deficits within me, it was also extremely destructive b/c getting my emotional and sexual needs met was very addictive, at least for me. And, although many of my needs were met and I had very strong feelings for my partner, I still felt unfulfilled. The Bible is also very clear about homosexuality being a sin (as are many other things), so it was a major conflict Homosexuals Anonymous web site is at http://members.aol.com/hawebpage This URL will give you tons of information and support groups re: homosexuality and recovering from it (too bad Yahoo lists them under Anti-Lesbian and Gay, b/c they are not.)
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Fa… d_Practices/Christianity/Organizations/Lesbians__Gays__and_Bisexuals/Anti_L e – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – sbian__Gay__and_Bisexual/ These groups are extremely loving and supportive and will help you change, but only if you want to. Nothing is forced on you. None of these groups in the Yahoo URL above are condemning of a person who is caught in homosexuality. You cannot help that you have homosexual feelings at present, but you can work to change them, if you want to change. And many people are successful. People in a homosexual struggle are not helped through condemnation. This was not the way of Jesus. People will only ever change from this, if they want to, through love and support. The road to change is not easy, but it is well worth it, especially if you want to be with God in heaven when you die and/or want to have a better chance at a successful marriage and have children. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying homosexual feelings will separate you from God. But if you fantasize about them a lot and/or act on them a lot, you will be separated from God, until you turn away. The groups above can help you turn away. Kinsey’s studies have in the last few years been called into serious question. See
http://www.cwfa.org/library/education/1997-09-26_kinsey.shtml – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not only was his methodology flawed and his statistics and results doctored to support what he wanted the outcome of the study to be, there is very strong evidence that hundreds of children were molested during the study. A psychiatrist whose last name is Nicolosi has been very successful in treating homosexuals. And before homosexuality was taken out of the manual on psychiatric disorders by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, there was a tremendous amount of data showing high success rates for overcoming homosexual feelings and behavior. The information is still available, but you have to dig a little more b/c it is not politically correct to say it is a disorder. The man who was most instrumental in getting it unlisted as a psychiatric disorder was Dr. Robert Spitzer. But in 1998, after reviewing much data on the success rates of homosexuals who have been able to change their orientation to a heterosexual one, if they want to change, Dr. Spitzer wanted to reopen the debate at the APA convention, but the debate was never allowed to occur b/c it was not politically correct. And in fact, when it was taken out of the manual on psyciatric disorders in 1973, there was no hard evidence to support its removal. It was just felt that people struggling with it would feel better if it was not listed as a disorder. If you read any study that has been done on homosexuality in terms of trying to prove a genetic link, the studies have been very small, often flawed, and cannot be duplicated, which is the hallmark of science. A great book on the subject of how the genetic science on homosexuality is very poor is by John Satinover and I think the book is called "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth". Although it was written in 1996, it is still quite good. For something more recent, you can find other books at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080105625X/o/qid=965082622/sr=… -7390119-7026256 Another excellent book is by Joe Dallas called "A Strong Delusion"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565074319/ref=sim_books/103-7… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 7026256 Below is a review of it from Amazon: Excellent reading for pursuit of truth , January 23, 2000 Reviewer: chongnoi (see more about me) from Indiana An excellent book that clearly shows the deceptive theology of liberal theologians. What a powerful testimony written by a former practicing homosexual and former pastor of a "gay" church. Required reading for all Christians, especially those within denominations where the topic of homosexual relations and "gay marriage" is a divisive issue up for debate. This book exposes the many myths and arguments by pro-homosexual lifestyle activists and gives hope to those struggling with homosexual tempations. Written with true compassion and love, in intelligent yet simple explanations. Great Reading and Information. Actually, a more recent book on the bad science along with many other issues and ultimately how to heal from homosexuality is by Richard Cohen called "Coming Out Straight : Understanding and Healing Homosexuality"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1886939411/qid=965084853/sr=1-… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 390119-7026256 Furthermore, even the scientists themselves who have done the studies never say this is a definite cause. They say there may be a correlation, and at that will admit that more research must be done, b/c their genetic studies provide weak links. There are also issues of heredity and heritability. Something that is hereditary is something that is clearly passed down like eye or hair or skin color. Heritability simply indicates that there may be a correlation between one thing and another genetically. However, something as complex as heterosexual or homosexual behavior cannot be reduced to a single or even set of genes. There may be predispositions toward homosexuality in terms of the fact that homosexuals are often more intelligent, creative, and sensitive then the average population, but then environment comes into play. Even the twin studies do not prove anything conclusively. See http://www.culture-of-life.org/homo_olear_childhoodexperiences.htm "In a 1991 study, Bailey and Pillard compared identical, fraternal, non-twin and adopted brothers of adult homosexual men. They found that 52% of the identical twins, 22% of the fraternal twins, 11% of the adopted brothers, and 9.2% of the non-twin siblings were also homosexual. All these percentages are higher than the incidence of male homosexuality in the general population. The finding that fraternal twins were more than twice as likely as non-twin siblings to be homosexual suggests factors in the childhood experience plays a key part in the development of same-sex attraction, Bailey and Pillard concluded, "These data are consistent with heritable variation in prenatal brain development or in some aspect of physical appearance, that, by way of differential parental treatment, leads to differences in sexual orientation." and that "one assumption of the heritability analysis presented above is that there are no major genes for homosexuality."(Bailey 1991) The "heritable variation" referred to might be a difference in sensitivity to maternal anxiety or differences in appearance." ***From Dr. Moberly http://www.culture-of-life.org/homo_olear_childhoodexperiences.htm Psychologists offer a
… read more »
Response:
Just by the way, there is lately one of those mad scientist/genius types who is doing work with viruses, and who speculates that a virus in early childhood causes homosexuality. I’m wishing I could remember where I read it (I read a lot) but I’m thinking it was an Atlantic issue. His contention is that since A) Jeff is right, and no one would choose to be a homosexual due to all the other social awfulness that goes with it (he mentioned you by name, Jeff!) and
Wow, I’m getting famous! B) that natural selection would have tended to eliminate gays as a portion of the population as they have fewer children and
Perhaps, but think in terms of recessive, not dominant genes. C) since the percentage has remained fairly constant,
How do we know this? It is VERY difficult to get an accurate count even today. How can one hope to find out how many gays there were 2,000 years ago? that there must be another cause — and he speculates a virus. It’s not as far-fetched as it sounds. Viruses have been recently discovered to be the cause of ulcers and specific heart conditions, and are also suspected as cancer causing agents.
Well, I will actually give that it is both genetics AND environment because I think I read a study that 82% of homosexuals twins that are gay will have their twin siblings also be gay. While that’s significantly above average, it’s not 100% which it would be if it were completely genetics. Though I heard about it from my wife, and didn’t see the study myself so I don’t know how exactly it was conducted, etc. But it’s possible that a virus could be a risk factor (though, not the sole factor). Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just thought I’d add that little tidbit. Sunny * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
The pioneering person on the formation of the homosexual complex is Dr. Elizabeth Moberly from Oxford. She contends that the most important factor in the development of the homosexual complex is that within the first 5 years of a child’s life, if they do not bond significantly with their father if they are male, or with their mother if they are female, they often will develop a homosexual complex, which could mean just having feelings for the same sex or acting on them as well. I personally believe there are other factors as well, but this is the biggest by far, she believes. An excerpt and a URL, I believe, based on her pioneering book "Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic" is at the end of this post. See *** at the bottom. Her book is listed out of print at Amazon, but is still printed and can be gotten through Homosexuals Anonymous and many other groups. I am a recovering, Christian, male bisexual. I’ve had homosexual and heterosexual feelings since about puberty and never knew how to deal with the powerful homosexual feelings. I currently attend Homosexuals Anonymous chapter and for the first time in my life I feel like I am gaining control over my feelings and behaviors. I had a homosexual affair for about 6 months and although it was wonderful in some ways b/c it filled terrible emotional deficits within me, it was also extremely destructive b/c getting my emotional and sexual needs met was very addictive, at least for me. And, although many of my needs were met and I had very strong feelings for my partner, I still felt unfulfilled. The Bible is also very clear about homosexuality being a sin (as are many other things), so it was a major conflict Homosexuals Anonymous web site is at http://members.aol.com/hawebpage This URL will give you tons of information and support groups re: homosexuality and recovering from it (too bad Yahoo lists them under Anti-Lesbian and Gay, b/c they are not.) http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Fa… d_Practices/Christianity/Organizations/Lesbians__Gays__and_Bisexuals/Anti_L e sbian__Gay__and_Bisexual/ These groups are extremely loving and supportive and will help you change, but only if you want to. Nothing is forced on you. None of these groups in the Yahoo URL above are condemning of a person who is caught in homosexuality. You cannot help that you have homosexual feelings at present, but you can work to change them, if you want to change. And many people are successful. People in a homosexual struggle are not helped through condemnation. This was not the way of Jesus. People will only ever change from this, if they want to, through love and support. The road to change is not easy, but it is well worth it, especially if you want to be with God in heaven when you die and/or want to have a better chance at a successful marriage and have children. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying homosexual feelings will separate you from God. But if you fantasize about them a lot and/or act on them a lot, you will be separated from God, until you turn away. The groups above can help you turn away. Kinsey’s studies have in the last few years been called into serious question. See http://www.cwfa.org/library/education/1997-09-26_kinsey.shtml Not only was his methodology flawed and his statistics and results doctored to support what he wanted the outcome of the study to be, there is very strong evidence that hundreds of children were molested during the study. A psychiatrist whose last name is Nicolosi has been very successful in treating homosexuals. And before homosexuality was taken out of the manual on psychiatric disorders by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, there was a tremendous amount of data showing high success rates for overcoming homosexual feelings and behavior. The information is still available, but you have to dig a little more b/c it is not politically correct to say it is a disorder. The man who was most instrumental in getting it unlisted as a psychiatric disorder was Dr. Robert Spitzer. But in 1998, after reviewing much data on the success rates of homosexuals who have been able to change their orientation to a heterosexual one, if they want to change, Dr. Spitzer wanted to reopen the debate at the APA convention, but the debate was never allowed to occur b/c it was not politically correct. And in fact, when it was taken out of the manual on psyciatric disorders in 1973, there was no hard evidence to support its removal. It was just felt that people struggling with it would feel better if it was not listed as a disorder. If you read any study that has been done on homosexuality in terms of trying to prove a genetic link, the studies have been very small, often flawed, and cannot be duplicated, which is the hallmark of science. A great book on the subject of how the genetic science on homosexuality is very poor is by John Satinover and I think the book is called "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth". Although it was written in 1996, it is still quite good. For something more recent, you can find other books at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080105625X/o/qid=965082622/sr=… -7390119-7026256 Another excellent book is by Joe Dallas called "A Strong Delusion" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565074319/ref=sim_books/103-7… 7026256 Below is a review of it from Amazon: Excellent reading for pursuit of truth , January 23, 2000 Reviewer: chongnoi (see more about me) from Indiana An excellent book that clearly shows the deceptive theology of liberal theologians. What a powerful testimony written by a former practicing homosexual and former pastor of a "gay" church. Required reading for all Christians, especially those within denominations where the topic of homosexual relations and "gay marriage" is a divisive issue up for debate. This book exposes the many myths and arguments by pro-homosexual lifestyle activists and gives hope to those struggling with homosexual tempations. Written with true compassion and love, in intelligent yet simple explanations. Great Reading and Information. Actually, a more recent book on the bad science along with many other issues and ultimately how to heal from homosexuality is by Richard Cohen called "Coming Out Straight : Understanding and Healing Homosexuality" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1886939411/qid=965084853/sr=1-… 390119-7026256 Furthermore, even the scientists themselves who have done the studies never say this is a definite cause. They say there may be a correlation, and at that will admit that more research must be done, b/c their genetic studies provide weak links. There are also issues of heredity and heritability. Something that is hereditary is something that is clearly passed down like eye or hair or skin color. Heritability simply indicates that there may be a correlation between one thing and another genetically. However, something as complex as heterosexual or homosexual behavior cannot be reduced to a single or even set of genes. There may be predispositions toward homosexuality in terms of the fact that homosexuals are often more intelligent, creative, and sensitive then the average population, but then environment comes into play. Even the twin studies do not prove anything conclusively. See http://www.culture-of-life.org/homo_olear_childhoodexperiences.htm "In a 1991 study, Bailey and Pillard compared identical, fraternal, non-twin and adopted brothers of adult homosexual men. They found that 52% of the identical twins, 22% of the fraternal twins, 11% of the adopted brothers, and 9.2% of the non-twin siblings were also homosexual. All these percentages are higher than the incidence of male homosexuality in the general population. The finding that fraternal twins were more than twice as likely as non-twin siblings to be homosexual suggests factors in the childhood experience plays a key part in the development of same-sex attraction, Bailey and Pillard concluded, "These data are consistent with heritable variation in prenatal brain development or in some aspect of physical appearance, that, by way of differential parental treatment, leads to differences in sexual orientation." and that "one assumption of the heritability analysis presented above is that there are no major genes for homosexuality."(Bailey 1991) The "heritable variation" referred to might be a difference in sensitivity to maternal anxiety or differences in appearance." ***From Dr. Moberly http://www.culture-of-life.org/homo_olear_childhoodexperiences.htm Psychologists offer a number of possible explanations of how homosexuality could develop. According to one interpretation of Freudian psychological theory, painful internal sensations or external situations produce traumas. The traumas may be acute, chronic, or cumulative. Some traumas produce psychological conflict. According to Dr. Robert Stoller, who specialized in study and treatment of sexual deviation, traumas may only cause change, "Conflict implies intrapsychic struggle to order to choose among possibilities."(Stoller, 1973) Dr. Ruth Barnhouse, who has written on identity and homosexuality, elaborates on Stoller’s analysis: It is conflict, not trauma, which produces an internal fork in the developmental road. The reason this is so important is that neuroses, including perversion of the sexual development, does not result simply from trauma, but from particular resolutions of conflict in this technical sense of that word. As a result of conflict the individual chooses, however primitively and unconsciously, one solution over another.(Barnhouse, p.117) This process of trauma, leading to a conflict which produces a choice has been reported by a number of adult homosexual men who remember that after a traumatic childhood experience they made an inner "vow" that they would never be like their fathers. Leanne Payne has seen instances where a boy has … read more »
Response:
The odds of lining up the genetic mutations for one species to develop into another, or for swamp slime to become a more complex creature are astronomical.
No, not really. If you’re interested I can explain (I’d prefer if you read on your own since it could take a few books) otherwise I’m not going to waste my time. Here’s one source. And there are many, many more. http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm
Try a non-biased scientific source instead of a non-scientific ministerial web site. It’s the THEORY of evolution, not the LAW.
Yup. That’s because evolution isn’t something that MUST occur given a certain situation. It CAN occur, but a law is very quantifiable. Gravity can be calculated if you know some numbers, such as the mass of the planet you’re on. However, we can’t say that "given the current situation we predict the gray wolf will evolve in _____ way." There are still a lot of holes in it.
Missing pieces (in regards to humanity)? Sure. Holes? No. It seems to make logical sense on the surface, but when you dig into what has to happen on a genetic, molecular level, it leaves a lot to be desired.
Not at all. Even on those level it makes complete sense. Here: don’t think evolution in terms of 1, 2 generations. Think in terms of MILLIONS, of years for significant changes. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BINGO! And we have constantly seen that Christians are willing to deny anything (whether it be science, or whatever) to retain their doctrine (example: evolution). Some Christians for certain. But the statement doesn’t apply universally. That’s fair. I was generalizing BUT that’s not to say all Christians. I’m not so foolish as to think that only atheists are intelligent. Some of the most intelligent people I’ve met are Christians who would never follow anything blindly. Plenty of Christians are truth seekers such as yourselves who have come to the conclusion the Christianity has a lot of truth. Evolution? Now there’s a theory in want of some solid evidence. OMG. There are BOOKS of evidence. Do you accept evolution blindly? Absolutely not. Not only is it completely logical, it describes what we see (for example, why we have vestigal organs, and such things) and doesn’t rely on any miracles. Mutations for example, aren’t always negative as I previously thought. Why would you think they are always negative? But, the statistics required for mutations to cause one species to develop into another are astronomical. Whoa there! I think you’re off on the mechanisms of evolution. There is a very important question you are missing: WHY do species change? Standing here from the point of humanity we really might think it’s SIMPLY chance (people with a better or worse sense of smell all reproduce, stupid people have more kids than smart people…), but in nature these random mutations take because these mutations allow individuals to survive better, have more offspring, and have those offspring (also with the mutation) survive as well. Thus, we must look to nature. There is no birth control, no farming, no medicine, and no divine compassion. Simply multiple offspring fighting for limited resources which include territory, food, and mates. What decides who beats out the other for those resources? It’s these little differences (perhaps one is a little faster, smarter, what not) that survive and pass what ALLOWED them to survive on to their offspring. Now what causes these little differences? Mutation. Take a biological statistics course and see for yourself. Evolution is full of holes. Micro evolution certainly, but macro evolution is nearly impossible.
Response:
Just by the way, there is lately one of those mad scientist/genius types who is doing work with viruses, and who speculates that a virus in early childhood causes homosexuality. I’m wishing I could remember where I read it (I read a lot) but I’m thinking it was an Atlantic issue. His contention is that since A) Jeff is right, and no one would choose to be a homosexual due to all the other social awfulness that goes with it (he mentioned you by name, Jeff!) and B) that natural selection would have tended to eliminate gays as a portion of the population as they have fewer children and C) since the percentage has remained fairly constant, that there must be another cause — and he speculates a virus. It’s not as far-fetched as it sounds. Viruses have been recently discovered to be the cause of ulcers and specific heart conditions, and are also suspected as cancer causing agents. Just thought I’d add that little tidbit. Sunny * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
The odds of lining up the genetic mutations for one species to develop into another, or for swamp slime to become a more complex creature are astronomical. Here’s one source. And there are many, many more. http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm It’s the THEORY of evolution, not the LAW. There are still a lot of holes in it. It seems to make logical sense on the surface, but when you dig into what has to happen on a genetic, molecular level, it leaves a lot to be desired.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BINGO! And we have constantly seen that Christians are willing to deny anything (whether it be science, or whatever) to retain their doctrine (example: evolution). Some Christians for certain. But the statement doesn’t apply universally. That’s fair. I was generalizing BUT that’s not to say all Christians. I’m not so foolish as to think that only atheists are intelligent. Some of the most intelligent people I’ve met are Christians who would never follow anything blindly. Plenty of Christians are truth seekers such as yourselves who have come to the conclusion the Christianity has a lot of truth. Evolution? Now there’s a theory in want of some solid evidence. OMG. There are BOOKS of evidence. Do you accept evolution blindly? Absolutely not. Not only is it completely logical, it describes what we see (for example, why we have vestigal organs, and such things) and doesn’t rely on any miracles. Mutations for example, aren’t always negative as I previously thought. Why would you think they are always negative? But, the statistics required for mutations to cause one species to develop into another are astronomical. Whoa there! I think you’re off on the mechanisms of evolution. There is a very important question you are missing: WHY do species change? Standing here from the point of humanity we really might think it’s SIMPLY chance (people with a better or worse sense of smell all reproduce, stupid people have more kids than smart people…), but in nature these random mutations take because these mutations allow individuals to survive better, have more offspring, and have those offspring (also with the mutation) survive as well. Thus, we must look to nature. There is no birth control, no farming, no medicine, and no divine compassion. Simply multiple offspring fighting for limited resources which include territory, food, and mates. What decides who beats out the other for those resources? It’s these little differences (perhaps one is a little faster, smarter, what not) that survive and pass what ALLOWED them to survive on to their offspring. Now what causes these little differences? Mutation. Take a biological statistics course and see for yourself. Evolution is full of holes. Micro evolution certainly, but macro evolution is nearly impossible.
Response:
Micro evolution certainly, but macro evolution is nearly impossible.
All macro evolution needs is micro evolution and time. You sound like you’ve been trained well by the apologetisists of the world. Maharg Before you buy.
Response:
BINGO! And we have constantly seen that Christians are willing to deny anything (whether it be science, or whatever) to retain their doctrine (example: evolution). Some Christians for certain. But the statement doesn’t apply universally.
That’s fair. I was generalizing BUT that’s not to say all Christians. I’m not so foolish as to think that only atheists are intelligent. Some of the most intelligent people I’ve met are Christians who would never follow anything blindly. Plenty of Christians are truth seekers such as yourselves who have come to the conclusion the Christianity has a lot of truth. Evolution? Now there’s a theory in want of some solid evidence.
OMG. There are BOOKS of evidence. Do you accept evolution blindly?
Absolutely not. Not only is it completely logical, it describes what we see (for example, why we have vestigal organs, and such things) and doesn’t rely on any miracles. Mutations for example, aren’t always negative as I previously thought.
Why would you think they are always negative? But, the statistics required for mutations to cause one species to develop into another are astronomical.
Whoa there! I think you’re off on the mechanisms of evolution. There is a very important question you are missing: WHY do species change? Standing here from the point of humanity we really might think it’s SIMPLY chance (people with a better or worse sense of smell all reproduce, stupid people have more kids than smart people…), but in nature these random mutations take because these mutations allow individuals to survive better, have more offspring, and have those offspring (also with the mutation) survive as well. Thus, we must look to nature. There is no birth control, no farming, no medicine, and no divine compassion. Simply multiple offspring fighting for limited resources which include territory, food, and mates. What decides who beats out the other for those resources? It’s these little differences (perhaps one is a little faster, smarter, what not) that survive and pass what ALLOWED them to survive on to their offspring. Now what causes these little differences? Mutation. Take a biological statistics course and see for yourself. Evolution is full of holes. Micro evolution certainly, but macro evolution is nearly impossible. All I really want to know is some information about when human sexuality is formed. Is it from age 2-6? It certainly isn’t the simple process that some have made it. The girls raised as boys and boys raised as girls doesn’t really hold much water in this complex issue.
How do you figure? You have my answer to this in the previous post. If you have problems, quote the phrase(s) you have problems with and reply… Jeff
Response:
BINGO! And we have constantly seen that Christians are willing to deny anything (whether it be science, or whatever) to retain their doctrine (example: evolution).
Some Christians for certain. But the statement doesn’t apply universally. Some of the most intelligent people I’ve met are Christians who would never follow anything blindly. Plenty of Christians are truth seekers such as yourselves who have come to the conclusion the Christianity has a lot of truth. Evolution? Now there’s a theory in want of some solid evidence. Do you accept evolution blindly? Mutations for example, aren’t always negative as I previously thought. But, the statistics required for mutations to cause one species to develop into another are astronomical. Take a biological statistics course and see for yourself. Evolution is full of holes. Micro evolution certainly, but macro evolution is nearly impossible. All I really want to know is some information about when human sexuality is formed. Is it from age 2-6? It certainly isn’t the simple process that some have made it. The girls raised as boys and boys raised as girls doesn’t really hold much water in this complex issue.
Response:
Hi, Jeff. This is why I love your sane, compassionate, thinking mind.
Thanks, but I have to admit there’s a good deal of curiosity that drives me as well… Also, men tend to not be the brightest when it comes to women and thus I would guess that a good percentage of men that get dumped end up that way because of their lack of competence. In other words, if all he’s going to do is prey there’s a good chance she won’t come back. Hopefully, the reason why he didn’t respond is because she came home and they worked it out. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Love, Sunny
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What you said sounds mostly like sound facts with thought behind them, except for the statement "No one in their right mind would chose to be homosexual" =) I suppose this might lead to a debate as to what "in their right mind" means but ill assume it to mean that which is not clinically insane, meaning would be diagnosed insane by a psychiatrist, which gay people are not. And well those may be all people "born" gay people have been known to do stranger things then sleep with their own sex. Simply because it offers no advantages from our perspective that doesnt necessarily mean it doestn from theirs. The mind is a tricky thing and can often be convinced of things it wouldnt normally accept if it also thinks that by being a this certain way it solves other problems…of neglect or need for attention. And i suppose this "confusion" of the mind can be defined as "not in their right mind" and in which case i agree with you. Otherwise i think you can see the exceptions.
If there was absolutely NO genetic impulse to be gay, can you give me any reason why you or I would sanely choose to be homosexual. Before you answer think about how one’s family generally reacts, how difficult it is to make friends, the fact that your dating pool is GREATLY reduced… But what are the advantages? I don’t see any. That’s the point I was trying to make. The final thought is that until we know scientifically for sure, it is easy to see the advantages from both viewpoints, from the gay community and from the christian viewpoint.
Sorry, I can’t see the idea that one simply chooses to be gay, or it’s simply because of environment. Simply too much going against it. From the perspective of the Gay community, to say that it is ALL choice indicates they have some sort of perversion of the mind in order for them to decide to be a way which contradicts natural man.
Yes… From the perspective of the Christian, to say that it is INBORN indicates that it is NOT their fault and thus they cannot be held accountable for being gay (which is thought of by many christians (not necessarily me =) ) to be sinful). And if its not their fault for sinning…uh oh…what does that lead to?
BINGO! And we have constantly seen that Christians are willing to deny anything (whether it be science, or whatever) to retain their doctrine (example: evolution). Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maharg
Response:
Hi, Jeff. This is why I love your sane, compassionate, thinking mind. Love, Sunny * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
What you said sounds mostly like sound facts with thought behind them, except for the statement "No one in their right mind would chose to be homosexual" =) I suppose this might lead to a debate as to what "in their right mind" means but ill assume it to mean that which is not clinically insane, meaning would be diagnosed insane by a psychiatrist, which gay people are not. And well those may be all people "born" gay people have been known to do stranger things then sleep with their own sex. Simply because it offers no advantages from our perspective that doesnt necessarily mean it doestn from theirs. The mind is a tricky thing and can often be convinced of things it wouldnt normally accept if it also thinks that by being a this certain way it solves other problems…of neglect or need for attention. And i suppose this "confusion" of the mind can be defined as "not in their right mind" and in which case i agree with you. Otherwise i think you can see the exceptions. The final thought is that until we know scientifically for sure, it is easy to see the advantages from both viewpoints, from the gay community and from the christian viewpoint. From the perspective of the Gay community, to say that it is ALL choice indicates they have some sort of perversion of the mind in order for them to decide to be a way which contradicts natural man. From the perspective of the Christian, to say that it is INBORN indicates that it is NOT their fault and thus they cannot be held accountable for being gay (which is thought of by many christians (not necessarily me =) ) to be sinful). And if its not their fault for sinning…uh oh…what does that lead to? Maharg Before you buy.
Response:
Well, it’s not really my idea. I heard it from some therapists and I’m trying to find out if it’s got any legs. The gay community wants us to believe that it’s an inborn and normal thing. I’m not ready to buy that, but that is the view pushed in the mainstream at this point. A debate needs input from both sides. Jeff, in your opinion, what causes homosexuality? I’m not preaching. I’m looking for a discussion.
OK. Firstly let’s define homosexuality. http://encarta.msn.com/find/search.asp?z=1&pg=1&search=homosexuality <<Homosexuality HOMOSEXUALITY, sexual orientation toward people of the same sex. Homosexuality contrasts with heterosexuality,… It’s not as simple as sex with the same sex. Look at prisons: most of the people who rape other men there are in fact heterosexual. In fact, most men who molest young boys are heterosexual. So if you’re looking as to what causes heterosexuals to things that are considered homosexual, that’s another discussion. But here we are talking about people who PREFER and SEEK OUT sex with the same sex. They are attracted to the same sex much like we are attracted to the opposite sex. One doesn’t become a homosexual once they first have sex with the same sex, nor do they stop being homosexual if the force abstinence upon themselves or attempt to act heterosexual, because it is this orientation and preference which makes the person homosexual. So, we come to the question: what makes one a homosexual? Firstly, we must note that this isn’t a uniquely human phenomenon and so that does say that it is a natural phenomenon and thus undoubtedly genetic. But does environment play a role? I think it does, but I’m not sure to what extent. We have seen boys raised as girls who still want girls, and we’ve seen girls raised by fathers who wanted boys as boys and still want men as their sexual partners. Finally, I will answer the criticism that it is a choice. I will assure anyone reading this: no one in their right mind would EVER choose to be a homosexual. The advantages are few if any, but the consequences are absolutely horrific as this is truly one the most (if not the most) discriminated against groups in the world. This is why most homosexuals are in the closet, this is why admitting homosexuality is considered such a major decision. Now, making that decision doesn’t make someone gay or straight, it just involves admitting their sexual preference to the world and accepting the consequences that come with it. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I frequently hear gay friends say that they are born that way. Yet, there are testimonies galore from ex-gay folks. I heard once that human sexuality is formed between the ages of 2 and 6. If this is indeed the case, it would seem to explain the "I’ve always felt different, always knew I was gay" since we rarely become aware of who we are at an early age, and strike at the "I was born this way" arguement. Is it true that sexuality is formed during this period? What light would that shed on the homosexuality debate? I would really argue that. Ever hear of the case where a kid was given a sex change operation at birth (there were problems with his reproductive organs, so, they got rid of them). He (well, she) was given hormone injections (estrogen) and was completely treated like a little girl. Yet when she reached puberty low and behold it wasn’t boys she was after. The parents believed your idea, but obviously it failed. Similarly we have seen many who raise daughters like they were sons when fathers were unable to recieve the boy they wanted, yet these women didn’t go off and become lesbian. Jeff
Response:
Well, it’s not really my idea. I heard it from some therapists and I’m trying to find out if it’s got any legs. The gay community wants us to believe that it’s an inborn and normal thing. I’m not ready to buy that, but that is the view pushed in the mainstream at this point. A debate needs input from both sides. Jeff, in your opinion, what causes homosexuality? I’m not preaching. I’m looking for a discussion.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I frequently hear gay friends say that they are born that way. Yet, there are testimonies galore from ex-gay folks. I heard once that human sexuality is formed between the ages of 2 and 6. If this is indeed the case, it would seem to explain the "I’ve always felt different, always knew I was gay" since we rarely become aware of who we are at an early age, and strike at the "I was born this way" arguement. Is it true that sexuality is formed during this period? What light would that shed on the homosexuality debate? I would really argue that. Ever hear of the case where a kid was given a sex change operation at birth (there were problems with his reproductive organs, so, they got rid of them). He (well, she) was given hormone injections (estrogen) and was completely treated like a little girl. Yet when she reached puberty low and behold it wasn’t boys she was after. The parents believed your idea, but obviously it failed. Similarly we have seen many who raise daughters like they were sons when fathers were unable to recieve the boy they wanted, yet these women didn’t go off and become lesbian. Jeff
Response:
I frequently hear gay friends say that they are born that way. Yet, there are testimonies galore from ex-gay folks. I heard once that human sexuality is formed between the ages of 2 and 6. If this is indeed the case, it would seem to explain the "I’ve always felt different, always knew I was gay" since we rarely become aware of who we are at an early age, and strike at the "I was born this way" arguement. Is it true that sexuality is formed during this period? What light would that shed on the homosexuality debate?
Response:
On the elusive question of ex-gays ……. http://indegayforum.org/articles/pietrzyk1.html Genesis Nemesis http://www.connect.usq.edu.au/students/q9920223/
Response:
I frequently hear gay friends say that they are born that way. Yet, there are testimonies galore from ex-gay folks. I heard once that human sexuality is formed between the ages of 2 and 6. If this is indeed the case, it would seem to explain the "I’ve always felt different, always knew I was gay" since we rarely become aware of who we are at an early age, and strike at the "I was born this way" arguement. Is it true that sexuality is formed during this period? What light would that shed on the homosexuality debate?
I would really argue that. Ever hear of the case where a kid was given a sex change operation at birth (there were problems with his reproductive organs, so, they got rid of them). He (well, she) was given hormone injections (estrogen) and was completely treated like a little girl. Yet when she reached puberty low and behold it wasn’t boys she was after. The parents believed your idea, but obviously it failed. Similarly we have seen many who raise daughters like they were sons when fathers were unable to recieve the boy they wanted, yet these women didn’t go off and become lesbian. Jeff
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.