|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I don't think it's a fair analogy.
Alcoholics either (a) have something in their brain that gets turned on the first time they drink alcohol and their dependency upon it grows to pathological proportions or (b) drink increasing amounts until their brain is altered and becomes dependent upon it.
Homosexuals are like left-handed people in the sense their sexual and romantic attraction is to the same-sex.
Or put more simply - alcoholic is something you become; homosexual is something you are/have always been.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Homosexuals are like left-handed people in the sense their sexual and romantic attraction is to the same-sex.
Please provide some evidence that homosexual attraction is a similar kind of phenomemon to left-handedness.
quote:
Or put more simply - alcoholic is something you become; homosexual is something you are/have always been.
This is a very far-reaching statement. Please provide some evidence to support it.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't think it's a fair analogy.
Alcoholics either (a) have something in their brain that gets turned on the first time they drink alcohol and their dependency upon it grows to pathological proportions or (b) drink increasing amounts until their brain is altered and becomes dependent upon it.
Homosexuals are like left-handed people in the sense their sexual and romantic attraction is to the same-sex.
Or put more simply - alcoholic is something you become; homosexual is something you are/have always been.
The science doesn't back that up sadly, the genetically pre-dispositioned Alcholics are in the majority AFAIK. And your theory wouldn't help conservatives accept homosexual relationships anyway. Just because you are inherantly heterosexual doesn't make every sexual relationship you have is okay in their thinking.
Oh and leo that study you referred to is absolutely useless unless they checked the arousal rate of non-homophobic men as well. Given what I know of human sexuality I suspect the rates would be exactly the same in both populations. Arousal is hardwired so deeply that you have little conscious control over, it is not unusual for rape victims to become physically aroused despite how much their conscious mind rebels.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
Oh and I just wanted to add that just because you are genetically likely to be a homosexual, alcoholic, gambler, violent, cat fancier, gossip, casanova etc, that doesn't mean you get a free pass to indulge, morally speaking.
It makes perfect sense to say that homosexuality/alcoholism/gambling/violence/cat fancying/gossiping/seducing lovely ladies is inherant but that you musn't do it because of X. Isn't the whole point of Christianity that we are all sinners and all tempted but we must try and resist?
My point is that even if you got conservaties to accept that homosexuality is not a choice made by people, engaging in homosexual relationships *is* a choice. So if you accept that homosexuality or alcoholism is determined by genetics it makes no difference to the moral acceptability of said practices. Homosexuals don't have to have sex, and alcoholics don't have to drink.
To sum up. If homosexuality/alcoholism is wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether it is genetically inherant of the person, because they can make the choice (however hard) to not engage in those practices. And it is still wrong to hate the sinner regardless.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
The whole issue on whether honmosexuals 'can help it or not'/ nature versus nurture etc. has been aired considerable on previous pages of this long thread.
It seems utterly stupid to equate homosexuality with alcoholism - obviously it does not seem thus to others. Hence the mess the Church is in. Conservatives and 'liberals' (I disown the word but it's shorthand) don't speak the same language and don't believe the same gospel.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
And do you still think that believing homosexual acts are wrong means one's on the way to being a homophobic? I'm sure your father/son/husband or whoever has done plenty of wrong stuff in his life, but would you stop loving him?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
And do you still think that believing homosexual acts are wrong means one's on the way to being a homophobic? I'm sure your father/son/husband or whoever has done plenty of wrong stuff in his life, but would you stop loving him?
I have yet to come across a person believing that homosexual acts are wrong who is at the same time able to continue loving me. So far in the last 15 years or so since a came out as a lesbian former friends have - ended friedships
- prevented their children visiting me on their own
- threatened to tell my headmaster
- threatened to try to get me sacked
- tried to sack me
- etc. ad nauseam
Some friends have changed their beliefs about homosexuality after my coming out. It took them some time, but this time was valuable for all of us.
I wouldn't go so far to say that everyone who is against homosexual acts is homophobic, but my experiences are limited to persons who either clearly are or have a different concept of love than I have.
[ 11. December 2005, 15:58: Message edited by: Lioba ]
--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.
Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lioba:
I have yet to come across a person believing that homosexual acts are wrong who is at the same time able to continue loving me.
The question of what does or does not count as a "homosexual act" and how it relates to me personally could probably be its own thread, Dead Horse or otherwise, but I'm a gay man who does not have oral or anal sex (to speak plainly) precisely because I don't believe they're morally permitted to me, and I definitely don't have a problem loving myself or any of the people connected to my (very definitely gay) leather family. I am unusual in specifically being -- and being proud of being -- a part of the gay community and culture, even the leather part of that community in particular, while not believing that sexual intercourse (as I understand it, and there's probably tons of stuff by me somewhere earlier on this thread; most people on either side don't agree with my notions on the matter, and I accept that; I only say all this because I don't think we've met before (hi there!)) is not permitted to Christians outside of male-female marriage; but for me it is like being a Roman citizen who is also a Christian. One is definitely a citizen, can even be proud to be a citizen, can see many good things about being a Roman that other cultures do not have, while yet not pouring out libations to the emperor on theological grounds. Or so is my take on it.
It's not so much "I believe this and some of my best friends are gay" as "I believe this and the most important people in my life are gay, and while I don't do some of the things they do, I'm gay too." To some degree I've even been socialised by the gay community far more than by the straight crowd. But that's a long story -- which is way down near the last page of the Limbo thread, T &T: Explaining the Leather Thing, and takes up three pages I oughtn't rehash here.
I will also add that I don't expect my fellow self-defined gay people to believe or act as I do, nor do I push them to. But I am a bit sad that people who would otherwise be part of the community, because of their beliefs about sex, cut themselves off from us and refuse to even recognize us as a valid culture or subculture. It's as if from our point of view, we have a real community which may include sex but is considerably more, and from the anti-sex people's point of view, we don't really exist but are just a collection of immoral people pretending to have a community -- witness the way some televangelists refuse (and say so!) to use the term "gay" on the grounds that it gives any kind of credence to us. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
So, for what it's worth, many hugs from someone who does not believe in the sex (as I perceive it; your mileage may vary) but who considers you somewhat a member of the same "tribe"...
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitebait
Shipmate
# 7740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Please provide some evidence that homosexual attraction is a similar kind of phenomemon to left-handedness.
In both cases there is some evidence to suggest that at least some of the underlying causes involve genetics (both traits seem to run in families to some extent) and other biological factors such as hormonal and immunological influences whilst the child is still in the womb.
Statistically, research into twins shows that these are not the sole causes for homosexual orientation, but perhaps account for 50% of the influence.*
Research into left-handedness generally supports a similarly complex causation theory, however, funding for this area of research is less intense, partly because society seems to have less interest in knowing the causes of left-handedness.
The limited research available has given conflicting results but amassed data tends to show that e.g. males are more likely to be left handed than females, and self-reported homosexuals are 39% more likely to report being left handed or ambidextrous. (A short newspaper report here, and a longer pdf research paper here).
*There are lots of web links about the twin research. I won't post them unless people are particularly interested.
As to the alcoholism analogy. Most people I know are moderate drinkers, and seem to manage their alcohol intake in a responsible manner, to their social benefit. Only a few seem addicted to alcohol and unable to control their intake, to their and others' social disadvantage.
Likewise, most gay folk I know seem to manage their relationships in a responsible manner, to their social benefit. Only a few seem unable to limit their sexual activites, with addictively promiscuous behaviour that would be detrimental to stable relationships.
--------------------
small fry on a journey
Posts: 151 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems utterly stupid to equate homosexuality with alcoholism
It is utterly stupid and completely asinine to equate the two, or even to use alcoholism as an analogy for homosexuality. Alcoholism destroys lives, full stop. Homosexuality does not.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems utterly stupid to equate homosexuality with alcoholism
It is utterly stupid and completely asinine to equate the two, or even to use alcoholism as an analogy for homosexuality. Alcoholism destroys lives, full stop. Homosexuality does not.
Homosexuality does destroy lives. Or at least the hate of it does. And there are many alcoholics who manage to hold their lives together despite their drinking. The homeless wino is not your typical alcoholic.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FiliusSyon
Shipmate
# 10722
|
Posted
Thank you, David. I could not agree more. As I see it, there is a problem: I do not think that homosexuality is entirely a matter of choice. RC teaching - the only one I understand far enough to talk a little about - holds that every homosexual person is called to chasity. That they have little faculty of living chaste is pretty irrelevant - you do not choose your calling, you are called. Fact is, they cannot live up to those values - no one can. But who can keep the law? I know I am struggling with chaste living - I have failed on numerous occasions, and when I did not fail in the body, it was only for grace, because I am quite ugly. But I do not have 50-page threads about my failings, mor am I persecuted in any way, hell, no one cares, just because I failed with women. The fact that the homosexual community for a great part refuses to see their errors does not diminish the grave injury posed by this double standard - most sinners of the heterosexual kind are unrepentant too, and they are far more numerous.
David: That no one can live up to the law was not meant as a comment about your chasity - which is your business.
PS: A language issue: Is the use of faculty as a synonym for abilty still common, or is it dated?
--------------------
----
"It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled sea of thought."
- John K. Galbraith
Posts: 220 | From: Vienna, Austria | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Homosexuality does destroy lives. Or at least the hate of it does.
Homosexuality and the hatred of homosexuality are not exactly the same thing, though, are they?
So let's stop hating it, because there's nothing inherently wrong with it. All anyone here can say is "the Bible says it's wrong," and that's on the basis of six or seven verses, of which the OT ones don't apply as we're not orthodox Jews and the NT ones might not even be talking about homosexuality and certainly aren't talking about stable homosexual relationships as we know them. So that leaves us with nothing to do but look at the effects of homosexuality. And lo and behold, when we do that, no one can ever show that Bad Things necessarily come of gay people loving each other.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Homosexuality does destroy lives. Or at least the hate of it does.
Homosexuality and the hatred of homosexuality are not exactly the same thing, though, are they?
So let's stop hating it, because there's nothing inherently wrong with it. All anyone here can say is "the Bible says it's wrong," and that's on the basis of six or seven verses, of which the OT ones don't apply as we're not orthodox Jews and the NT ones might not even be talking about homosexuality and certainly aren't talking about stable homosexual relationships as we know them. So that leaves us with nothing to do but look at the effects of homosexuality. And lo and behold, when we do that, no one can ever show that Bad Things necessarily come of gay people loving each other.
And you can say the same thing for sex outside marriage or blasphemy. Bible still says they are wrong according to some interpretations. And you can argue till you are blue in the face, but you
aren't going to change those people's views.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I introduced the alcoholism example not seeking to equate or liken homosexuality to it; it wasn't an analogy at all.
Rather, to demonstrate a situation where an individual was predisposed (whether by genetics or environment isn't essential to the argument) towards a certain activity; which one would disapprove of... call "wrong", even..... but not necessarily hate the individual.
Statements such as "I've never met someone who thought homosexuality was wrong and yet didn't love me as a person" might be true. I don't see how one can be dogmatic that such a person could never exist.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Sebastian
Staggering ever onward
# 312
|
Posted
My priest in the church where I was baptized absolutely believed that homosexual activity was sinful and that it is possible to be "healed" from it. However, he and his wife were never anything but loving and wonderful to me and my partner. We were treated like a couple, invited to their home many times, and we had made it clear we had no intention of breaking up nor did we feel any need to be "healed". They accepted that we loved and were committed to each other and treated us accordingly. So it is possible for people to "hate the sin and love the sinner". I don't know that it's very common, but it's possible.
--------------------
St. Seb
In Spite of Everything: Yes.
Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Thank God somebody managed it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems utterly stupid to equate homosexuality with alcoholism
It is utterly stupid and completely asinine to equate the two, or even to use alcoholism as an analogy for homosexuality. Alcoholism destroys lives, full stop. Homosexuality does not.
Also, alcholism is classified as an illness. Homosexuality is not classified as a disease/illness by the World health Foundation.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Whether it is classified as an illness or nmot makes no difference to whether it is one. The official government classifications of psychological illnesses are at least partly political statements about what behaviour is or is not considered acceptable. They are instruments of social control. That vast American document the DSM used to have quite a lot of illnesses that are no longer in it, not just homosexuality.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
skippy01
Apprentice
# 10759
|
Posted
Ok some of you may have seen the topic I tried to post on here, failing that I've been redirected to this topic. Here's my say...
First of all, I'd love to know how this assumption was made:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Homosexuals are like left-handed people in the sense their sexual and romantic attraction is to the same-sex.
What is it implying? That all homosexuals are left handed? That being left handed is a sin as well?! What a coincidence that I'm both gay AND left handed!
As much as you try to, you cannot prove homosexuality is a choice, because it isn't. I didn't wake up one morning thinking "ah sod the blokes I'm gonna be a dyke from now on", it was gradual... First I had to ask myself why I suddenly wanted to talk to this girl more in school that I hardly knew. Once I figured I might be gay I experimented, and it's who I am.
I've been told by my own mum that I should be ashamed, I've had abuse shouted at me in the streets, I've had two parents stand there laughing whilst their little kids who couldn't have been older than 8 were ripping into me and my gf. How can anyone claim that I'm chosing to put myself through what I've gone through?
Fact of the matter is, I've accepted who I am and I'm quite happy with it. I've got an amazing gf and I wouldn't change anything for the world. But all those years ago in school if I'd have had the choice whether I liked girls or boys, when all my mates were trying to flirt with the guys in the year above I know I wouldn't have chosen to fancy the girls!
Posts: 4 | From: Southampton/Nottingham | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
skippy01
Apprentice
# 10759
|
Posted
Oh, also...
Leo I wasn't attacking you becuase I agree with alot that you've said, I was just very confused with the lefthanded comment!
Homosexuality is not an illness. An illness is when you have something wrong with you physically or mentally... I have no mental illness, and apart from a slightly dodgy ankle there's nothing wrong with me physically!
The only difference between me and the majority of you is that I don't find someone of the oppositte sex attractive, how is that so wrong?
Someone who likes blondes doesn't try and claim someone with a brunette partner is ill, or committing a sin! At the end of the day it's just difference of opinion on whats attractive and whats not.
Posts: 4 | From: Southampton/Nottingham | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
I still think the issue that motivates this thread to keep going is deeper than (for some) a problem with homosexuality—I believe it is at root a problem the Church/Christians have with sexuality.
Paul does not appear to have been married, and accepting only the main letters as his (that is avoiding the Pastorals and Ephesians), he seems to have a down on sexuality in Romans and an understanding that there is no point in wasting time in it because the parousia is coming, but if you cannot contain your ‘lust’, well get married. This ia long way away from the gospelled Jesus who has illustrations from family life and sees heaven as an ongoing wedding party with no tomorow and no hang-over.
As Harry Williams wrote, Augustine took the wordt parts of Paul—and we see a decrying of even sensuality in its broadest form here in such writings. No wonder there were reactions such as the Anabaptists—the only thing to thing about in copulating must be the seed you are trying unite with the ovum.
It is all about seeding—and homosexuality challneges this terribly pristine and prurient view on sex and sexualty and sexual encounters.
Our Jewish religious inheritance should make us wary of blood—and yet at the Last Supper Jesus proclaims, Drink this cup it is my blood. Definitely not kosher. And thereafter we intermingle—both physically it taking a piece of the same well-handled loaf and sipping from the kissed chalice. But as well as the physicality of it, we are also saying we are in some way inter-bodied, inter-blooded, with each other and with Christ—as intimate as a sexual couple (the husband and wife, as illustrated).
We are sexed and sexual beings—we don’t have ‘seasons’, we can copulate at any time.
All this seems to bring out in certain people a puritanical depth of abyssmal proportions. As Harry Williams further states: Calvin took the worst of Augustine.
Why is there this assumption that God is so anti-sex unless it is for procreation? What was Ruth doing lying at Boaz’s feet—since feet are a euphemism for genitalia, is this a reference to fellatio. No children being born from that seed, then.
There are no sexual acts that are done by homosexuals that are not done by heterosexuals. So what do we mean by homosexual acts?
[As an aside—it is quite interesting in Maccabees that the Israelites ally and align themselves very closely with the Spartans!]
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Faithful Sheepdog asked:
quote:
Please provide some evidence that homosexual attraction is a similar kind of phenomemon to left-handedness.
For those that are interested, Chandler Burr has a comparison of homosexuality and left-handedness on The Only Question That Matters
Scroll down to the section headed "-The Answer-".
quote:
Put all this data together, and you've created the trait profile. The trait just described is, of course, handedness.
.....
It turns out that the trait profile for human handedness is astonishingly similar to a profile clinicians and geneticists have assembled of another human trait—sexual orientation.
Similarity of trait profile, of course, is not proof that the underlying mechanism is the same.
Cheers, OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
skippy01
Apprentice
# 10759
|
Posted
If this comment is true (below) then does that not prove that homosexuality isn't a choice? No one can claim that at the age of 2 you decide you want to be gay when you're older!
"9) Signs of one's orientation are detectable very early in children, often, researchers have established, by age two or three. And one's orientation probably has been defined at the latest by age two, and quite possibly before birth."
(taken from http://www.chandlerburr.com/articles/Burr_White_Paper.html )
[ 13. December 2005, 10:04: Message edited by: skippy01 ]
Posts: 4 | From: Southampton/Nottingham | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It seems to me most of the research on this area isn't that high quality. The twin studies, in particular, seem to be very widely quoted without any appreciation of their limitations.
The best (and largest, but still very underpowered) I could find was this one. I'm sure there are others that could be quoted - and I'd be interested what others make of them.
Although the brain imaging studies I've seen for transgender conditions seem quite convincing, the studies I've seen didn't seem quite so convincing for homosexuality.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What mdijohn said.
Also bear in mind that homosexuality is (almost certainly) not one thing, and that some kinds may be developed differently than others.
And that there are (almost certainly) no single genes "for" complex behavioural patterns, such as sexual attraction.
And that a genetic makeup that is expressed in one way in one environment might be expressed in another way in another environment.
In fact, in terms of behaviour, it almost certainly does. There are real, measurable, psychological or even neurological differences between taxi drivers and taxidermists, between liberals and libertarians, between combat troops and computer programmers. They are probably at least partly predicatbly from genes. But that same genetic variation existed in societies where none of those roles existed an, presumably, expressed itself in different ways.
So even if it is true that there are traits that can vbe observed in 2-year-old babies in California from which we are able to predict with some confidence that that baby will grow up to show a certain behaviour, that does not mean that the same trait in a baby growing up in Cambodia will lead to the same adult behaviour
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitebait
Shipmate
# 7740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me most of the research on this area isn't that high quality. The twin studies, in particular, seem to be very widely quoted without any appreciation of their limitations....
Bailey's papers on twins are some of the most informative.
Following criticism of the small sample sizes in his and other similar research papers he carried out further work Bailey,JM; Dunne,MP; Martin,NG (2000): Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. J. Pers. Social Psychology 78, 524-536 which is not readily available online.
This study of over 14,000 Monozygotic (identical) twins came up with a figure of 38% (i.e. if one twin was gay, the likelihood of the other twin being gay was 38%), which was lower than the 52% from Bailey's previous study. Bailey himself pointed out the difficulties in finding enough self-reporting non-heterosexuals to make any such study statistically significantly.
Both the 38% and 52% figures are notably higher than those for non-identical twins (suggesting a strong genetic influence), and even in the case of non-identical twins, studies tend to show that the rate is higher here (16-22%) than for siblings and adobted siblings (6-14%), suggesting some influences during development in the womb.
There is no dispute that all figures show there is some environmental (non-genetic) influence. Further large studies of twins are continuing in Australia and may turn up more data shortly. A broad summary of research to date can be found in a 2002 report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (large pdf file, Chapter 10 is the relevant section).
Difficulties in all such studies include the complexities in categorising an individual's sexuality, and the willingness or otherwise of individuals to reveal such details.
Such statistic-heavy data can be difficult to convey to a general audience, so how the data is presented will have an effect on how it is perceived. In general, where the data is discussed by those groups and writers who support 'cures' for homosexuality (Narth, Exodus, Whitehead, Throckmorton) the genetic influence tends to be played down.
In the end, I wonder, does it really matter whether the causes are genetic or environmental?
In either case for most people their orientation seems set by a very early age. One researcher (Spitzer) noted that perhaps only 3% of the population might show any fluidity in their sexuality, and that would more likely be a movement along the Kinsey scale, rather than a complete change. I'm assuming those changes would happen by themselves, rather than through any deliberate attempt to change.
One UK group noted that after ten years of intensive ministry to try and change folks sexuality "the kind of change everyone really hoped for ... remained elusive", and they did the honest thing and stopped pushing this approach.
--------------------
small fry on a journey
Posts: 151 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So that leaves us with nothing to do but look at the effects of homosexuality. And lo and behold, when we do that, no one can ever show that Bad Things necessarily come of gay people loving each other.
I would expect that eventually statistical evidence would bear this out.
Right now it seems as though we are short of unbiased statistical evidence. The biases have to calm down eventually, though - like in a hundred years.
What statistical measures would indicate that "Bad Things" do or do not come?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Whitebait, I can only look at the abstract of this paper.... and you'll forgive me if I attack it a little. The abstract doesn't make it clear how many cases were examined.... what the methodology was... how the conclusions were reached.... I'll accept that clearly one can't get everything into an abstract, but this one seems to contain next to none of the important information.
If I understand you correctly, this study didn't do the normal thing of comparing monozygotic and dizygotic twins within study, but instead measured the rate and compared it to rates in other studies.
If so, that seems badly designed.... given the huge variations from study to study in reported rates.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
corvette
Shipmate
# 9436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't think it's a fair analogy.
Alcoholics either (a) have something in their brain that gets turned on the first time they drink alcohol and their dependency upon it grows to pathological proportions or (b) drink increasing amounts until their brain is altered and becomes dependent upon it.
Homosexuals are like left-handed people in the sense their sexual and romantic attraction is to the same-sex.
Or put more simply - alcoholic is something you become; homosexual is something you are/have always been.
[tangent]
No, i disagree here. My understanding is that some people are very much more likely to become alcoholic than others, given the same experiences and opppportunities. (oopppps). as if that were possible. In so far as they may process alcohol differently. One i have known for nigh on forty years started off by being one of the lads and drinking everyone under the table, she simply doesn't get hangovers.(yeah, life's not always fair. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) now, I may have memories i would also like to forget, but i don't stand the chucking up and the blinding headaches so i get my comforts elsehow. I think an alcoholic predisposition is something you are born with, though not everyone so born will make use of it.
I found the alcoholics anonymous website and its relatives (alanon, alateen etc) very helpful for anyone who wants to know more.
And yes, you can hate alcoholism without hating every alcoholic. You can yearn for the person they used to be, the person they could have been if their addiction hadn't taken over their life. You can hate the tragic waste.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
[/tangent]
Posts: 494 | From: ecclesia sans frontiers | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
OK then - but you cannot (I hope) say that gay people are addicted and waste their lives.
Why not? Saying people "waste" their lives on drug addictions (and not with their families) is a value judgement. If you think that only heterosexual partnerships and child raising are the only healthy type of relationship, then you can say that gay people are wasting their lives. Plenty of people say career oriented women (as a career oriented man can have a stay at home wife, but it is not acceptable to be a stay at home man) or single men and women, are "wasting" their lives.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
corvette
Shipmate
# 9436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
OK then - but you cannot (I hope) say that gay people are addicted and waste their lives.
Not at all. Not the ones i know anyhow. A surprisingly high number are church musicians but then that's how i know them, it's one of the ways i meet people outside of work.
It may be that without the musical connection i would be less likely to meet them in a church context. Without it, i would be a lot less likely to be there myself.....
And before anyone quips, i'm not suggesting for one moment that church musicians are addicted and waste their lives; quite the opposite ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 494 | From: ecclesia sans frontiers | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
OK then - but you cannot (I hope) say that gay people are addicted and waste their lives.
Why not? Saying people "waste" their lives on drug addictions (and not with their families) is a value judgement. If you think that only heterosexual partnerships and child raising are the only healthy type of relationship, then you can say that gay people are wasting their lives. Plenty of people say career oriented women (as a career oriented man can have a stay at home wife, but it is not acceptable to be a stay at home man) or single men and women, are "wasting" their lives.
So a gay couple I know, who have been together for 35 years and who do tireless work for charity are wasting their lives?
And any straight couple who live only for themselves, childless and not doing anything for the wider community, aren't?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It's interesting how prejudices shift.
I find the suggestion that childlessness is somehow linked to wasting one's life equally offensive.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
But some things need redeeming to not be wasted. Alcoholism is one - an experience that can be used to reach out to others, gain insight into the world, addiction and sin..... but only if redeemed and so used. Otherwise, I rather fear it is wasted.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
OK then - but you cannot (I hope) say that gay people are addicted and waste their lives.
Why not? Saying people "waste" their lives on drug addictions (and not with their families) is a value judgement. If you think that only heterosexual partnerships and child raising are the only healthy type of relationship, then you can say that gay people are wasting their lives. Plenty of people say career oriented women (as a career oriented man can have a stay at home wife, but it is not acceptable to be a stay at home man) or single men and women, are "wasting" their lives.
So a gay couple I know, who have been together for 35 years and who do tireless work for charity are wasting their lives?
And any straight couple who live only for themselves, childless and not doing anything for the wider community, aren't?
If you believe that the only full life is through having a heterosexual marriage and children, then yes. I don't believe that, but it is a common view in most communities. Now that homosexuality is being accepted the focus has shifted from a partner and children to just a partner. Or haven't you noticed the amount modern culture focuses on this issue? It is only really within the last generation that being single has become anything like acceptable.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's interesting how prejudices shift.
I find the suggestion that childlessness is somehow linked to wasting one's life equally offensive.
I was trying to make the point that gay people are told that their sexuality is 'barren' because it is not procreative - so I used childless straights as a paralel. It was an attempt to show how offensive that is.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Strikes me as fighting fire with fire.
I would say that even if one is "unproductive" on "unsuccessful" in terms of sexual relationships, that is not the sum total of one's life.
So even if I have had an unblessed, sinful relationship with my life's partner..... or not had a partner at all, it's a far leap to say my life has been wasted.
Alcoholism, on the other hand, can invade and destroy every part of your life. I think this is the hallmark of addictions - sex addiction included.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oreophagite
Shipmate
# 10534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
It is only really within the last generation that being single has become anything like acceptable.
Huh? See 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, paying particular attention to vs. 8-9. Not everyone has been called to marriage. A lifestyle characterized by celibacy and chastity is completely valid.
That being said, a loving sexual relationship between man and woman has throughout history been considered mutually sanctifying. Obviously, there are many ways that a sexual relationship between man and woman can be sinful and mutually defiling, to the point of loss of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 247 | From: The Klipoth | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
corvette
Shipmate
# 9436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
....That being said, a loving sexual relationship between man and woman has throughout history been considered mutually sanctifying. ..
Uhh. Only if you're married. Preferably to each other.
Posts: 494 | From: ecclesia sans frontiers | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
That being said, a loving sexual relationship between man and woman has throughout history been considered mutually sanctifying.
Has it? I am not even sure that it has always been considered desirable, let alone sanctifying. I could well imagine some societies considering "a loving sexual relationship" as self-indulgent or irrelevant. In some, perhaps, *any* sexual relationship might be considered as no more sanctifying than is going to the toilet - a mere practical necessity.
Bear in mind that many societies arrange their sexual relationships between strangers: the bride and groom begin their sexual relationship without any acquaintance, let alone love. And some also, would you believe, even regard the female as some kind of chattel. Not sure that "loving sexual relationship" or "sanctifying" even comes onto the radar of all societies throughout history.
In a world of physical hardship, poverty, disease and short life expectancy, a "loving sexual relationship" could well be the least of people's concerns - and rather too much like "fussiness". "Put up with it, you could be dead tomorrow with the plague and starvation" might be higher moral imperatives in much of history.
Only in an age of high wealth and material prosperity do we expect, even demand, that luxury called "a loving sexual relationship". Would we be less *holy* if we persevered with an indifferent sexual relationship, because divorce in our society was unthinkable?
[ 25. December 2005, 05:29: Message edited by: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz ]
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
It is only really within the last generation that being single has become anything like acceptable.
Huh? See 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, paying particular attention to vs. 8-9. Not everyone has been called to marriage. A lifestyle characterized by celibacy and chastity is completely valid.
That being said, a loving sexual relationship between man and woman has throughout history been considered mutually sanctifying. Obviously, there are many ways that a sexual relationship between man and woman can be sinful and mutually defiling, to the point of loss of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Acceptable in mainstream society for "normal" people. Don't try and tell me that old spinsters and bachelors weren't regarded as odd and eccentric at best.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oreophagite
Shipmate
# 10534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Don't try and tell me that old spinsters and bachelors weren't regarded as odd and eccentric at best.
Some old spinsters and bachelors are quite dotty. I'm not sure which is the cause and which is the effect. I suspect Paul might have been seen as quite odd.
quote:
Would we be less *holy* if we persevered with an indifferent sexual relationship, because divorce in our society was unthinkable?
When male-female union is nothing more than a recreational activity, then that activity is not mutually sanctifying. At best, nothing happens spiritually, and at worst it would be mutually defiling. Inappropriate male-female union is part of the early initiation rites in the black arts. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
On the contrary, appropriately conducted male-female union is considered mutually sanctifying in many non-Christian religions. It was part of the mystery tradition in many, many ancient religions.
quote:
In some, perhaps, *any* sexual relationship might be considered as no more sanctifying than is going to the toilet - a mere practical necessity.
Going to the toilet is absolutely necessary and unavoidable. Joining to achieve mystical union is a decision. Any sexual encounter, even a recreational one, is a decision made by at least one participant (hopefully both). In other words, it is completely optional.
quote:
Uhh. Only if you're married. Preferably to each other.
A good discussion point for another thread. The mystical tradition opines that when a male-female join, the union that occurs is a celestial, mystical joining, a marriage "in the eyes of God". The earthly ceremony is complementary. This is likely related to the dialectic between the Law of Moses regarding divorce and Jesus's remarkable statement at Matt 19:6.
Posts: 247 | From: The Klipoth | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz:
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
That being said, a loving sexual relationship between man and woman has throughout history been considered mutually sanctifying.
Has it? I am not even sure that it has always been considered desirable, let alone sanctifying. I could well imagine some societies considering "a loving sexual relationship" as self-indulgent or irrelevant. In some, perhaps, *any* sexual relationship might be considered as no more sanctifying than is going to the toilet - a mere practical necessity.
Yes, exactly.
In the 4th & 5th & 6th centuries it was considered a bad and unholy thing by Christians and pagans alike. Gnostic hatred of the body thoroughlt infected Christianity & some of us haven't shaken it off yet. People like to blame St. Augustine for it but he was actually mild compared with anti-sex anti-women crusaders like Jerome or Chrysostom.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Chrysostom was anti-sex and anti-woman? Really? I've read some of his writings on marriage and they seem well-balanced and amazingly egalitarian.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Alcoholism, on the other hand, can invade and destroy every part of your life. I think this is the hallmark of addictions - sex addiction included.
Are you, by any chance, thinking that gays suffer from 'sexual addiction'?
You must have really tried to read that in. Quote the line above (the third of a four line post) and you'll have your answer.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
<i> Originally posted by iGeek.:
FS,
If I bring some of my black friends to church, some of the white bigots will leave.
And iGeek plays the race card. Now that’s an original line. NOT.
For the record, I know that many black Americans deeply resent the attempt by present-day homosexuals to hijack the black civil rights struggle for their own purposes. This is just rich white guys checking in 40 years too late for the real fight.</i>
Isn't this a bit racist too?
Many gay and lesbian people ARE black. Have these resentful black Americans talked to gay and lesbian blacks about their experience?
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
