[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
It can’t currently be changed because it has been declared unethical to try. This argument is circular. Current conversion therapies have produced bad results, which you have mentioned. Now, it is unethical to try better therapy with better results.[/quote]
The problem is that crank therapists with a Narth agenda continue to hold out false hope to people. Unfortunately, reparative therapy still occurs with the person’s permission.
I see it as similar to the introduction of a new drug. If the old drug was shown to be harmful, it would be irresponsible to blindly introduce the new drug to the populace without doing the necessary groundwork. You should go through progressive trials under controlled conditions until you are confident in the efficacy of the treatment in question.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The problem is not the repeatability of results, but the direction of the research. “We simply must find a genetic cause!” Why? “Because that’s what we need to find!” Where are the studies exploring the other causes? If, at the end of the day, the cause is 100% genetic, fine. But you can’t know that if you are unwilling look for other causes.
I don’t see selective research happening on this issue, but even if it did the data won’t support a hypothesis which is unsupportable. The vast majority of researchers on sexual orientation have concluded that it develops in response to both genetic and environmental factors, just as you and I agree. [/quote]
So, 35% of homosexuals are, at last, accounted for. I think this would import that a treatment for the environmental causes could be developed. Still, since the study controlled for psychological causes because it was done on twins, psychological causes could now be explored, since these influence gene expression:
[quote]Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn’t one so-called “gay gene.”
It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist.[/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
That’s not in the New Testament.
[/quote]
So Christians have stopped reading the Old Testament now? Good for them, not letting there young, impressionable children being influenced by that disgusting, filthy version of our lord!
Lifts and Thunder, have you two ever read “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat? You both seem to be on the same page as him and I mean that as a compliment.
Great book.
I guess this is a slight derail, but the book really gets to the meat of most political arguments. Most of the time, one group is trying to take from another group for previous prerceived slights. Once this starts to snowball, everyone wants to be in control of the government so they can use it as a hammer against whoever slighted them in the past. Life, liberty and property are the only real rights. The rest of it involves taking from someone else to enrich yourself. That’s why all taxation is theft backed up by law.
I believe if Bastiat was alive today, he would say that legally recognized unions are wrong whether it be man and woman or man and man. It’s a spiritual thing, or a contract between parties, but should not confer additional benefits that come from outside interests.
[Edited for readability - I pushed the ‘submit’ button instead of ‘preview’]:
Some further research abstracts (peer reviewed and found on PubMed only - convenient but obviously a bit short): From what I’ve learnt here, the verdict is still out on the causes of homosexual identities, only that the biological factors are obvious, but their importance is disputed.
But - although I really did look for alternative purely psychosocial theories, I pretty much drew a blank. As stated many times before, it seems pretty multicausal - so there will most probably be no single genetic or psychosocial cause.
What’s interesting as well is that sexual orientation (which seems pretty solidly set even before birth - that doesn’t mean necessarily genetic) seems to set a spektrum within which behaviour develops over the course of a life -
which helps explain heterosexual experimentation by people who may identify as gay (and vice versa as heterosexual, if you look at men on the ‘down low’).
What’s interesting is that there seems to be a link between negative attitudes towards homosexuality and attempts to simplify its reasons. I think many of our debates here bear witness to that.
Also, just to follow up on some misconceptions with regards to risk behaviour and mental illness as correlated to homosexuality - there seems to be a relatively clear correlation, not with the homosexuality, but with societal attitudes
(I’m not going to say the h-word, but they - and by the way the CDC in that veign - do) towards homosexual people; and that seems to cause higher incidences of mental illness and risk behaviours.
Here are the sources:
Beliefs about the etiology of homosexuality and about the ramifications of discovering its possible genetic origin
Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation
Sexual risk as an outcome of social oppression: data from a probability sample of Latino gay men in three U.S. cities
The impact of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of gay and bisexual Latino men: findings from 3 US cities
A multidimensional approach to homosexual identity
Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample
Why we cannot conclude that sexual orientation is primarily a biological phenomenon
Human sexual orientation. The biologic theories reappraised
Sexual identity development among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: consistency and change over time
Sexual orientation beliefs: their relationship to anti-gay attitudes and biological determinist arguments
Sexual orientation beliefs: their relationship to anti-gay attitudes and biological determinist arguments
To bring the discussion back on topic - and finally add my view: I’m not sure that there is such a thing as a ‘gay agenda’. Yes, there’s activism, as pretty much with any cause - and often that’s driven by people too focused on their cause.
But - it’s clear that some of the successes of the LGBT rights movement have helped improve the lives of many who used to suffer under discrimination, outright hatred or well-meaning but mostly ill-guided attempts at therapy.
I don’t agree with the alarmist conspiracy theorists who see a more sinister side to it - especially as the proponents of gay critical (still not saying the h-word) organisations don’t inspire me with confidence with regards to methods and motives.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
So, 35% of homosexuals are, at last, accounted for.
[/quote]
Thanks for the article, I hadn’t read that particular study. One clarification though. They didn’t conclude that 35% of gays derive their sexual orientation from genetics. They concluded that sexual orientation is 35% derived from genetics.
That is, genetics have an influence across the board but specific environmental influences (like hormones in utero) exert a significant effect as well.
Also they noted that the hybrid role of genetics and environment apply to heterosexuals as well.
Disappointing, but not unexpected given the activism of the gay community.
This title says it all. “Despite trying to the utmost, we STILL can’t find a primarily biological cause.” From the abstract:
This can never happen because gays refuse to believe they might have psychological issues or that, to SOME degree, they made certain choices that led to their orientation.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
This can never happen because gays refuse to believe they might have psychological issues or that, to SOME degree, they made certain choices that led to their orientation. [/quote]
Why are you equating environmental influences with a choice that gays make?
As noted in the study you cited earlier, sexual orientation is affected by genetics and environment. That includes both gays and straights.
I don’t think you would argue that heterosexuals choose their orientation, despite being influenced by environmental factors. So why would you argue differently for homosexuals?
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
This can never happen because gays refuse to believe they might have psychological issues or that, to SOME degree, they made certain choices that led to their orientation.
Why are you equating environmental influences with a choice that gays make?
As noted in the study you cited earlier, sexual orientation is affected by genetics and environment. That includes both gays and straights.
I don’t think you would argue that heterosexuals choose their orientation, despite being influenced by environmental factors. [/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]Disappointing, but not unexpected given the activism of the gay community.[/quote]
That statement would be much stronger were it supported by sources and evidence - proving causation between activism and lack of research in the area. No NARTH please, they are activists themselves.
[quote]‘Why we cannot conclude that sexual orientation is primarily a biological phenomenon’
This title says it all. “Despite trying to the utmost, we STILL can’t find a primarily biological cause.” From the abstract:
Recent neurostructural and genetic linkage evidence pertaining to sexual orientation must be viewed tentatively until it has been adequately corroborated and integrated with psychological and cultural models.[/quote]
The latter sentence says it all - in the last about 15 years with the high expectations towards the human genome project, experiments with somatic gene therapy and a host of new discoveries in molecular biology, the pendulum in the debate on human behaviour swung more towards ‘nature’; that has to be corrected, and I agree with that.
Without evidence of your earlier statement, I can’t interpret this sentence the way you do.
There’s a difference between influences and causes and - issues. Also, the sources clearly state and explain that homosexual people often have a higher risk of certain issues. Also, you are misinterpreting the sources: people make certain choices within the parameters set by their sexual orientation.
Human behaviour is complex - being reductionist about it will not help understand it better. I know it’s tempting as a simple explanation, well, gives a simple answers - but people are complex and so is their psychology.
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes, I understand the arguments for the traditional family. Is a traditional upbringing an necessary upbringing? Can children not develop to the their utmost potential in the care of a same-sex couple? If not, why not?
I agree with you. The research conducted on children of same sex parents shows that these children develop normally, are equally healthy, and are no more likely to be gay than children of straight parents.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
You’ve stated numerous times that you think genetics make up a part of homosexual orientation. I agree.
Then why discuss it further? We both agree that sexual orientation is due to a combination of both genetics and other factors (hormonal, environmental, etc.).
[/quote]
I’m personally not quite sure how he can say that children raised by a gay couple are equally likely to develop normally in one statement- Then turn around and say that the environment affect’s a person becoming gay in another sentence.
It would seem to me that the epitome of a gay environment would be to be raised by same sex parent’s?
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
I’m personally not quite sure how he can say that children raised by a gay couple are equally likely to develop normally in one statement- Then turn around and say that the environment affect’s a person becoming gay in another sentence.
It would seem to me that the epitome of a gay environment would be to be raised by same sex parent’s?[/quote]
First, it’s not me saying it. I’m sharing the conclusions of the medical and mental health organizations that have actually conducted the scientific research on the issue.
To answer your question, read the twin studies reference provided by PRCalDude. They specifically noted that the environmental factors are not general factors like the family in which the person is raised. Rather, they are individual factors like hormonal influences when the embryo is in the mother’s uterus.
Statistically, children raised by same sex parents are no more likely to be gay than children raised by straight parents.
It’s amusing how whenever I get into these discussions, science always gets criticized as being nothing but a political machine. People ignore the peer-reviewed published data from decades of scientific research, and equate this with political agendas.[/quote]
The problem here is politics do find their way into science, and muck it up.
One example is the connection between CO2 and global warming. Ice core data showing that CO2 and world temperatures are connected, which is true. Yet you look a little deeper, and find the cause and effect are reversed. The science used to prove global warming would have to rewrite the entire laws of physics.
Another example was when there was an accident with a circumcision, and the decision was to give the child a sex change. A psychologist published many papers on the subject proving that gender identity was purely environmental.
Now that this person is an adult, he came forward, and revealed that decades of published data was a total fraud. He had a terrible childhood, and the second he found out about what had happened, went back to living as a male.
Politics should not enter into science, but it does. A recent paper came out stating that over the next decade the world will be cooling. The scientist almost did not publish this because he was afraid that people would think global warming was over. In other words he almost suppressed knowledge for political reasons.[quote]
The difference between science and personal opinion is that science can back up its claims. You can do the same research following the same methodology, and you will find the same objective results.
Of course, when people don’t like the conclusions reached by science it is natural for them to dismiss those conclusions out of hand. Nobody likes it when science runs contrary to their personal beliefs. It’s Copernicus all over again.[/quote]
The problem is which side is Copernicus. I have heard Copernicus brought up repeatedly for things like astrology, the illuminati, and other things. (Coast to coast a.m. is fun.) Anyway, a common statement about science is that it advances one “death at a time”.
I have no doubt that some of the science is good. But I also see a political agenda in some studies. People are out to prove things, and they will prove them. And there are journals that will not publish articles that are not approved for political reasons.
(It should also be mentioned that some science is hard, and some is social. Economics is a social science for example.)
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
I’m personally not quite sure how he can say that children raised by a gay couple are equally likely to develop normally in one statement- Then turn around and say that the environment affect’s a person becoming gay in another sentence.
It would seem to me that the epitome of a gay environment would be to be raised by same sex parent’s?[/quote]
The change could happen in the pre-natal environment, making the post-natal environment irrelevant when it comes to sexual orientation.
[quote]orion wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
I’m personally not quite sure how he can say that children raised by a gay couple are equally likely to develop normally in one statement- Then turn around and say that the environment affect’s a person becoming gay in another sentence.
It would seem to me that the epitome of a gay environment would be to be raised by same sex parent’s?
The change could happen in the pre-natal environment, making the post-natal environment irrelevant when it comes to sexual orientation.
[/quote]
And if it didn’t happen in the pre-natal environment?
But why couldn’t gay couples provide a home to children that are already born that lack a home? Isn’t raising children as important as the ability to reproduce them? What is the essence of parenthood that makes gay couples not suited to that task?[/quote]
Ask a better preliminary question - why are there kids that nobody wants? Why are there children born not being raised by their biological parents? If there are multitudes of children in need of a home, ask a better question - why are they in this predicament in the first place?
We should hacking at the root, not the branch, of the problem.