[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Homosexuality is observed in animals. Are they choosing to be gay too?
bad example. They do it because it feels good. There is nothing romantic or an attractive factor. They do it the same reason you lock the door, and bring out the lube.
I love this argument. We’re now using the example of animals as a normative standard of behavior for humans. Sometimes, one tribe of monkeys will decide to wipe out another and eat them. I guess animals do it, so it must be fine for us too![/quote]
…sure, we call it war and it happens all the time. Perhaps not the eating part though…
The only issue that bothers me in relation to the “Gay Agenda” is a gay group attempt to force a private health organization to accept blood donations from practicing homosexuals.
I couldn’t care less about gay marriage, although personally I think that it would make more sense for gay groups to pursue equal legal rights for gay couples without requiring the term ‘marriage’ to be applied to their unions.
[This post has been edited by me, as my preview function didn’t work and my formatting got screwed up]:
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I think the non-homosexual homosexual advocates on this site would benefit from actually reading the APA’s position on homosexuality: http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html[/quote]
Since I fall into the above category, let me answer this. I have, many times, and I’m a bit surprised that you use this abridged version (leaving out quite a couple of important paragraphs) without highlighting it. That would help the discussion. Now let’s analyse this. I’ll try to clearly edit for readability, and will concentrate on the points you emphasise:
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?
[…] Some people engage in sexual activity (with same-sex and/or othersex partners) before assigning a clear label to their sexual orientation.
[…] Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.
[…]
So homosexuality is not necessarily an innate orientation, it can be chosen one way or another in a certain percentage of individuals.[/quote]
Where from the above paragraph do you get that from? All the stuff you have emphasised (or the rest of the text for that matter) doesn’t say that. All it says that self-labelling is an often long-winding process and that there is no final verdict over the process which lead to a specific orientation. This is consistent with the studies quoted in earlier posts, and pretty much with most what forlife has been trying to explain for some time.
In the paragraph ‘What is sexual orientation’ which you left out of your post, they clearly state that: “Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.[…]”
There is no talk of choice of orientation - they do indirectly mention choice of behaviour. There’s a big difference there. Referring to your ‘certain percentage’ who may be able to choose - that’s not alluded to in the text at all. The left-out paragraph (check out the full text btw, it’s very informative), explains very well that you have people who are not exclusive, so they may choose from a wider range of partners. They would in most cases be identified as bi-sexual.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.
Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience.
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Actually, as I demonstrate several pages back, it IS associated with psychopathology. One of the original reasons it was de-listed from the DSM-III is that, at the time, researchers beleived the opposite was true. Also, why do they declare it to be a “normal form of human experience”? Well, they just do.[/quote]
No, they don’t just do. Since as far back as Hooker (1957), http://www.psychologymatters.org/hooker.html
there had been a growing body of evidence that the disorder assumption could not be upheld. This again was well documented with some of the PubMed I quoted earlier - following up on them as suggested by you would have helped clarify this. Now I do now that scientific research is sometimes not easily follow by laypeople, but you can’t just ignore the massive evidence by the professionals in the field.
What you leave out now are two pretty important points:
‘What role do prejudice and discrimination play in the lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people?’ and ‘What is the psychological impact of prejudice and discrimination?’ Especially the last one really explains (just like a couple of source I quoted earlier) how the higher prevalence of mental disorders amongst LGBT comes to pass:
“The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. Sexual prejudice, sexual orientation discrimination, and antigay violence are major sources of stress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Although social support is crucial in coping with stress, antigay attitudes and discrimination may make it difficult for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to find such support.”
[quote][…]
Wow! A whopping 18-28% of homosexual men form stable, monogamous relationships. It’s reasonable to believe this will change if gay “marriage” is allowed, why? “Oh, I’m allowed to get married now. I guess I’ll all-of-a-sudden stop sleeping with as many men as I feel like!”[/quote]
That’s not what the text said. It said “[…] survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years.”
That doesn’t even address the number of stable relationships, it only comments on people who live together for a significant amount of time. Given the serial monogamy identified broadly in heterosexual couples, I think this actually not such a bad figure.
Here some studies for wider reading on serial monogamy and sexual practices among heterosexuals:
A review of sexual behavior in the United States
Marriage, divorce, and living arrangements: prospective changes
Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples
Sexual partnership patterns as a behavioral risk factor for sexually transmitted diseases
American families: trends and correlates
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?
[…]
“Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.”
So they don’t believe conversion therapy is effective, but they at least respect the right of self-determination.
It’s interesting to watch this organization tie itself in verbal knots. Homosexuality results from a variety of factors, but heaven forbid we try to change any of them, but it’s your own right to determine your own sexuality![/quote]
Again, you misinterpret what they are saying. There is no talk about self-determinating your own sexuality (that misconception has been covered earlier in the text), self-determination with regards to the patient-therapist relationship. The self-determination with regards to the therapy goes back to the problematic tradition of pre-DSM III days, when therapists often identified the homosexuality as the problem and rather tried to ‘cure’ it rather than the psychological or psychiatric illness the patient came with in the beginning.
As the galore of studies and abstracts that counter your points I’ve (and others) posted (so far not reciprocated by you) hasn’t changed yours. I’m glad though that your viewpoint indeed has been dying out within the profession (someone pointed out to scientific progress by death of proponents of older and outdated theories), and it’s currently only a very fringe group with quite problematic links to (mostly religious) pressure groups who still uphold it. This is going the way of the theory of hereditary pauperism (yeah, that’s so far gone that people don’t remember). I’m sorry that peer-reviewed sources, proper analysis of what’s actually stated by the professional bodies and a balanced and fair argument don’t seem to do the trick, but who am I to complain? It’s not my parallel universe that’s coming to an end.
Anytime that I’ve actually taken the time to check on forlife I’ve found that about 90% of the crap he throws around on this forum are either half truths, like his Bible nonsense, or complete fabrications.
I think this post is good enough to be brought to the front again. :D[/quote]
Only as an example on how not to argue.
Now if this alleged body of evidence was ever posted, we could discuss it - but alas it isn’t. Can’t speak for the Bible stuff (and as a non-christian it’s pretty irrelevant to me), but for the science, I’d really like to see that, and where the percentage claim comes from. Except of course if it’s from NARTH - they’ve been trashed here so often, I’m tired of it.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
The only issue that bothers me in relation to the “Gay Agenda” is a gay group attempt to force a private health organization to accept blood donations from practicing homosexuals.[…][/quote]
I suppose you refer to this story - which is actually the other way round; what is being opposed is a blanket life-time ban on all gay men to give blood donations:
FDA declines to lift ban on homosexual men as blood donors
"Critics claim that the ban is discriminatory and outdated, as other high risk groups such as prostitutes, intravenous drug users, and promiscuous heterosexuals are deferred from donation only one year from their last high risk encounter.
Moreover, more sensitive HIV screening tests are used now than when the rule was initially formulated. Since blood and blood products are in short supply, many favour lifting the ban. An estimated 62300 homosexual men would donate blood if the ban were lifted, according to the FDA. About 8% of the US male homosexual population is HIV positive."
It seems perfectly acceptable to lobby for lifting a ban which treats homosexual men only so radically different - in the face of a massive number of people willing to help others. Especially as we nowadays have tools to test. This is nothing to have a problem with - this is a cause to support imho.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
OK, I really could not give two cents for all the Scientific Mumbo Jumbo. Science in and of itself is worthless because they are constantly trying to prove themselves wrong.[/quote]
That’s why science is progressing - by continuously re-evaluating its positions. Without this no training science (or T-Nation), no cancer treatments, no Internet…
[quote]My only basis for saying it is a choice is from watching what goes on around me. I work in a profession which allows me to see many different people, I happen to see a lot of people who claim to be gay.
They change back and forth more times than I change my socks (which is everyday for those of you who care). Which to me indicates a certain amount of decision making going on. It seems that there will always be those who swing one way or another depending upon the percieved winds of popular opinion.[/quote]
And if decided to read the science on the topic you would understand this behaviour more - which may help you understand the types of pressures people who identify openly as gay (or are in the closet) face.
Can’t really comment on California (and this is not the gay marriage thread) - experience of countries which have been progressive on the issue though suggests that nothing really for heterosexual people tends to change once gay relationships are recognised. So, I think you won’t need that small shack in Wyoming after all.
One would have thought that any type of homosexual orientation in the gene pool would have been vigorously selected against simply because it is a loss of genetic fitness. Any trait that lessens the ability to reproduce with a member of the opposite sex and thus create viable offspring would simply not have survived. Those that prefer sex only with the opposite sex would have had an ENORMOUS genetic advantage over those who did not. This is going back to when sexual reproduction became the norm some 1.2 billion years ago. This is quite a conundrum from an evolutionary perspective. (Perhaps we have found a point that finally refutes Darwinism!) From the “unbiased” studies that I have seen on the subject, the majority of those individuals who practice such homosexual behavior generally had poor family relationships, some sort of sexual or social trauma growing up or just having a poor experience with members of the opposite sex. Here is a link to one particular one: epjournal.net
Personally, I don’t know whether homosexuality is due to nature or nuture. However I certainly will keep my mind open if any concrete evidence arises on the subject that leans one way or the other.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
The only issue that bothers me in relation to the “Gay Agenda” is a gay group attempt to force a private health organization to accept blood donations from practicing homosexuals.[…]
I suppose you refer to this story - which is actually the other way round; what is being opposed is a blanket life-time ban on all gay men to give blood donations:
FDA declines to lift ban on homosexual men as blood donors
"Critics claim that the ban is discriminatory and outdated, as other high risk groups such as prostitutes, intravenous drug users, and promiscuous heterosexuals are deferred from donation only one year from their last high risk encounter.
Moreover, more sensitive HIV screening tests are used now than when the rule was initially formulated. Since blood and blood products are in short supply, many favour lifting the ban. An estimated 62300 homosexual men would donate blood if the ban were lifted, according to the FDA. About 8% of the US male homosexual population is HIV positive."
It seems perfectly acceptable to lobby for lifting a ban which treats homosexual men only so radically different - in the face of a massive number of people willing to help others. Especially as we nowadays have tools to test. This is nothing to have a problem with - this is a cause to support imho.
I support the right of the Red Cross to decide who they accept blood from. With regards to screening, the testing is not perfect, and for this reason it makes no sense to accept blood from very high risk groups.
HIV is almost nonexistent amongst Australian born heterosexuals who aren’t IV drug users.
Here is a quote from the article: “The lawyer for the Red Cross Jeremy Ruskin SC said Australia has the safest blood supplies in the world. He said the proportion of HIV infected people in Tasmania who contracted the virus through male to male sex is 83 percent”. When you factor in the fact that gays only make up a small percentage of the population, the 83 percent figure is quite staggering. The remaining 17 percent is probably largely comprised of IV drug users, sex workers and their clients.
In this particular case it seems as though one side is interested in using statistics and probabilities, while the other side is making arguments based purely on emotion.
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
Those that prefer sex only with the opposite sex would have had an ENORMOUS genetic advantage over those who did not.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Remove the word ‘only’ from your statement and it would be correct.
Not really. Many other disadvantages genetic traits are still expressed in the general population. Down syndrome would provide a huge reproductive disadvantage, yet it has not been wiped out.
When there is a large amount of genetic diversity this is what you would expect.
I support the right of the Red Cross to decide who they accept blood from. With regards to screening, the testing is not perfect, and for this reason it makes no sense to accept blood from very high risk groups.
HIV is almost nonexistent amongst Australian born heterosexuals who aren’t IV drug users.
Here is a quote from the article: “The lawyer for the Red Cross Jeremy Ruskin SC said Australia has the safest blood supplies in the world. He said the proportion of HIV infected people in Tasmania who contracted the virus through male to male sex is 83 percent”. When you factor in the fact that gays only make up a small percentage of the population, the 83 percent figure is quite staggering. The remaining 17 percent is probably largely comprised of IV drug users, sex workers and their clients.
In this particular case it seems as though one side is interested in using statistics and probabilities, while the other side is making arguments based purely on emotion.[/quote]
Interesting topic, especially as this is a current case. No, I still don’t agree that he shouldn’t challenge the regulation. And, as expert witnesses are now being saying in this case, it looks like testing is indeed robust enough to reconsider the life-long ban. Risk behaviour is will understood, and a one-year ban sounds more reasonable. Tests should be done anyway.
So what’s your point, that you, forlife, and I all agree that homosexuality is chosen for some individuals? If there’s no “final verdict,” then we shouldn’t be ruling psychological causes and decisions certain individuals have made.
Yes, “significant amount of time” is what we’re after here. Do we go around congratulating heterosexual couples for having been together 9 years? Big deal. No one here is holding up “serial monogamy” as a standard of behavior for even heterosexual couples.
No, I interpreted it just fine, but everyone else can read it and be the judge.
This is false. You haven’t posted any. You’ve posted abstracts and articles for points on which we already agree.
Propaganda alert! But the latest twin studies show that homosexuality is only moderately genetic. Even the maternal fecundity studies that YOU posted accounted for only 28% of gay men. Researchers believe other factors play a roll, yet you can’t seem to post any studies exploring those factors.
Of course not. As long as you continue to dwell there, it will remain.
[quote]Except of course if it’s from NARTH - they’ve been trashed here so often, I’m tired of it.
Makkun[/quote]
Yeah, I looked for that. I found a few rants in your postings, but not much evidence that NARTH was this vicious, lying organization you make it out to be. Perhaps you could dig up the post for us. Perhaps I’ll be waiting for a long time for that.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]
So what’s your point, that you, forlife, and I all agree that homosexuality is chosen for some individuals? If there’s no “final verdict,” then we shouldn’t be ruling psychological causes and decisions certain individuals have made.[/quote]
No - that there is no final verdict on the causes of sexual orientation, but that it a) seems irreversible b) seems to have a significant biological component c) is influenced by environmental factors, of which choice doesn’t seem to be one. Yes, choice influences behaviour, but not the orientation. That’s been covered by the APA guidance you posted.
We’re not dicussing a ‘standard of behaviour’ - at least the scientific community doesn’t - we are discussing orientation and observable behaviour. Serial monogamy is pretty much the norm. In addition, you disregard the fact that the source talks about people living together, not only being together for 9 years. Big difference - seems to be lost when you’ve finished with the source. Just like the paragraphs about the mental health effects of discrimination which magically disappeared.
All significant professional bodies seem to interpret this point differently, which is of great relief to me, as it helps avoid misdiagnoses and botched ‘treatments’.
[quoted]This is false. You haven’t posted any. You’ve posted abstracts and articles for points on which we already agree.[/quote]
You wanted PubMed (for starting the discussion and further reading), you got PubMed. In there I were several points with which you don’t seem to agree - on the other hand we seem to have different angles with regards to interpreting the ideas presented.
You’re not presenting them either. I’m getting tired of all the work. All you said to that was that gay activism kept them from being done - unfortunately without any references to corroborate that.
Does that mean by opposing your viewpoints I keep your alternate universe in existence - this is really getting philosophical…
They are not evil - remember Nicolosi’s study that I pulled from PubMed - just proven wrong and outdated. They are on the fringe, most of their models are questionable or have been debunked - and not to forget, they do propagate a form of ‘therapy’ which is being viewed by their professional peers as ineffective and unethical. Anyone worth their qualification as a psychiatrist of psychologist should therefore be highly critical - like any other form of quackery.
I support the right of the Red Cross to decide who they accept blood from. With regards to screening, the testing is not perfect, and for this reason it makes no sense to accept blood from very high risk groups.
HIV is almost nonexistent amongst Australian born heterosexuals who aren’t IV drug users.
Here is a quote from the article: “The lawyer for the Red Cross Jeremy Ruskin SC said Australia has the safest blood supplies in the world. He said the proportion of HIV infected people in Tasmania who contracted the virus through male to male sex is 83 percent”. When you factor in the fact that gays only make up a small percentage of the population, the 83 percent figure is quite staggering. The remaining 17 percent is probably largely comprised of IV drug users, sex workers and their clients.
In this particular case it seems as though one side is interested in using statistics and probabilities, while the other side is making arguments based purely on emotion.
Interesting topic, especially as this is a current case. No, I still don’t agree that he shouldn’t challenge the regulation. And, as expert witnesses are now being saying in this case, it looks like testing is indeed robust enough to reconsider the life-long ban. Risk behaviour is will understood, and a one-year ban sounds more reasonable. Tests should be done anyway.
Let’s see what happens.
Makkun[/quote]
The ban is currently one year. That is what is being legally challenged.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Even the maternal fecundity studies that YOU posted accounted for only 28% of gay men. [/quote]
I’ll get to more of this later, but just a quick note. As I said earlier, the study didn’t find that 28% of gay men have a genetic component to their sexual orientation. It found that homosexuality was 28% due to the maternal fecundity factor.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
60% is not proof. Maybe for the pro-gay crowd, but not even science will take that as proof.
[/quote]
Wrong. 60% is a statistically significant difference. The study proved that the 3 locations identified in the genetic code are significantly associated with a homosexual orientation, beyond what would be the case by chance alone.
