The Physiology of Homosexuality

[MysticSang'ha]

are you suggesting homosexuality never existed before prenatal exposure to chemicals and hormones?

I take it he is saying it existed, but that it was a lifestyle choice and not at all a part of the person's physiological make up.

 

[sojourner]

I take it he is saying it existed, but that it was a lifestyle choice and not at all a part of the person's physiological make up.

In other words, it's a modern problem (undesirable physiological changes brought about by human contamination of the environment), judged and condemned by ancient cultural taboo (the purity codes of the ancient Hebrews).


Does anyone else perceive an incongruity here?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

In other words, it's a modern problem (undesirable physiological changes brought about by human contamination of the environment), judged and condemned by ancient cultural taboo (the purity codes of the ancient Hebrews).


Does anyone else perceive an incongruity here?

*raises hand*

I do. And honestly, it frightens me.

 

[waitasec]

I take it he is saying it existed, but that it was a lifestyle choice and not at all a part of the person's physiological make up.

i wonder if the lifestyle choice makes a difference from his POV?

if it does,
it would seem rather odd for someone to have sex with a person thy are not sexually attracted to...

 

[MysticSang'ha]

i wonder if the lifestyle choice makes a difference from his POV?

if it does,
it would seem rather odd for someone to have sex with a person thy are not sexually attracted to...

It is. But what I gather is that the OP is arguing that there was no such thing as same sex attraction that is biologically based, and that it was just fooling around, experimenting, and giving in to carnal desires rather than letting them go for the higher road of heterosexual married procreative sex.

Which I don't agree with. Too many works of literature, and poetry, and historical figures who have engaged passionately in same sex unions throughout the world to give weight to the OP's argument that biologically same sex attraction.....legitimate same sex attraction.....is something new.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

I think "The gays" are offended that there is a type of zealous attitude of research on the nature of homosexuality. I think the fact that we are discussing it people will be offended

 

[Skwim]

I think "The gays" are offended that there is a type of zealous attitude of research on the nature of homosexuality. I think the fact that we are discussing it people will be offended

Why do you think these things?

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Why do you think these things?

Personal experience and from what I see on these boards. I get the impression that people of homosexual orientation don't like their orientation seen as an experiment, rather, as something that is...well...normal. I have many homosexual friends who believe that their orientation shouldn't be researched. Many feel that society should just accept homosexuality as a normal thing and that research isn't neded.


Disclaimer*****

My usage of "the gays" is a Young Turks slogan which is occasionally used on that show. The term "The gays" is poking fun at a pastor who had made derogatory slogans of homosexuals and instead of addressing homosexuals as homosexuals, he referenced homosexuals as "the gays."

 

[methylatedghosts]

Personal experience and from what I see on these boards. I get the impression that people of homosexual orientation don't like their orientation seen as an experiment, rather, as something that is...well...normal. I have many homosexual friends who believe that their orientation shouldn't be researched. Many feel that society should just accept homosexuality as a normal thing and that research isn't neded.

Research into homosexuality is needed as much as research into heterosexuality is needed.

Most people don't feel heterosexuality needs all that much research - same goes for homosexuality, bisexuality, etc etc.

HUMAN sexuality, however...

 

[sojourner]

Research into homosexuality is needed as much as research into heterosexuality is needed.

Most people don't feel heterosexuality needs all that much research - same goes for homosexuality, bisexuality, etc etc.

HUMAN sexuality, however...

BAM! Hit the nail on the head here. Frubals!

 

[sojourner]

It's like saying, "Look. We are all uncomfortable with some folks being black. We know this. But, really, it's not their fault, so we should just treat them as 'normal.' Really, it's all the fault of MSG in our food that makes some people turn black. They didn't ask to be black. But it's clear that God thinks looking black is an abomination. it's not natural. But if we just make folks aware of the real problem -- that it's because of man's slip-up of putting too much MSG in our food -- then maybe the Christians who hate blacks so much will mitigate their hatred. Let's work on getting all these unfortunate souls to pray -- and get them in to the doctor, because there's some vague research that suggests these people can be 'turned' white through prayer and medical intervention. But in the meantime, we'd better not let them get married or become ministers, because, somehow, that tears the fabric of our society." (My apologies to African-Americans here.) It's absurd!

 

[John Boanerges]

It is. But what I gather is that the OP is arguing that there was no such thing as same sex attraction that is biologically based, and that it was just fooling around, experimenting, and giving in to carnal desires rather than letting them go for the higher road of heterosexual married procreative sex.
.

That's not what I said at all. In fact, the purpose of the post was to express the exact opposite. The same sex attraction IS biologically based. Did you mean to type "But what I gather is that the OP is arguing that there was no such thing as same sex attraction that is NOT biologically based."???

If you did, then I will answer that, too. Yes, I do believe that there is same sex attraction that is not biologically based and that is where CHOICE becomes a factor. But we have been focusing on the notion that most homosexuals express that their orientation was NOT a choice and therefore WAS biologically based.

If that is true (which, unlike most uninformed Christians) I DO believe, then we can now look to science to see why that occurs (in 1.7% of the population vs the 98.3 % who are heterosexual, according to the latest research). Granted, there is no one factor and that the determination of sexual orientation is complex (with the age of 2-4 being critical), they have determined physical brain changes (e.g. in the suprachiasmic nucleus of the hypothalamus) that are distinctly different in the two groups.

This should be a boon for the LGBTI community, unless we look at it as a "birth defect" or a "mental illness", which many will until this has a chance to completely sink in. Once it does, there will be a chance for reconciliation. Until then, its another Middle East situation.

Let's table the judgement against the homosexual lifestyle for a moment and focus on that, can we?

 

[sojourner]

That's not what I said at all. In fact, the purpose of the post was to express the exact opposite. The same sex attraction IS biologically based. Did you mean to type "But what I gather is that the OP is arguing that there was no such thing as same sex attraction that is NOT biologically based."???

If you did, then I will answer that, too. Yes, I do believe that there is same sex attraction that is not biologically based and that is where CHOICE becomes a factor. But we have been focusing on the notion that most homosexuals express that their orientation was NOT a choice and therefore WAS biologically based.

If that is true (which, unlike most uninformed Christians) I DO believe, then we can now look to science to see why that occurs (in 1.7% of the population vs the 98.3 % who are heterosexual, according to the latest research). Granted, there is no one factor and that the determination of sexual orientation is complex (with the age of 2-4 being critical), they have determined physical brain changes (e.g. in the suprachiasmic nucleus of the hypothalamus) that are distinctly different in the two groups.

This should be a boon for the LGBTI community, unless we look at it as a "birth defect" or a "mental illness", which many will until this has a chance to completely sink in. Once it does, there will be a chance for reconciliation. Until then, its another Middle East situation.

Let's table the judgement against the homosexual lifestyle for a moment and focus on that, can we?

I refuse to focus on any hypothesis that says "God didn't mean for them to be this way." That just makes homosexuality a group with a disability. Homosexuality isn't a disability.

 

[John Boanerges]

It's like saying, "Look. We are all uncomfortable with some folks being black. We know this. But, really, it's not their fault, so we should just treat them as 'normal.' Really, it's all the fault of MSG in our food that makes some people turn black. They didn't ask to be black. But it's clear that God thinks looking black is an abomination. it's not natural. But if we just make folks aware of the real problem -- that it's because of man's slip-up of putting too much MSG in our food -- then maybe the Christians who hate blacks so much will mitigate their hatred. Let's work on getting all these unfortunate souls to pray -- and get them in to the doctor, because there's some vague research that suggests these people can be 'turned' white through prayer and medical intervention. But in the meantime, we'd better not let them get married or become ministers, because, somehow, that tears the fabric of our society." (My apologies to African-Americans here.) It's absurd!

You're right...it was an absurd analogy. Why don't you try again.

BTW - You're the one making all of the comments about gays being second class citizens, not me. Have you seen me write one typical gay-bashing comment on this forum?

The only one you THINK you have seen is the one in which I said "not to say that they should be leaders in the church". I know it takes a little thought (which I know you are capable of), but...as I have said, this thread was meant for the Christian reader, not directed AT the LGBT community. I have since discovered that there are very few Christians on this forum. My mistake. But when I discuss this with Christians, the vast majority (no hyperbole here) are totally unaware of the physiological aspects of sexual orientation and have assumed that homosexuality is purely a choice. My comment "not to say that they should be leaders in the (fundamental evangelical Christian) church" is purely a concession on their behalf, as crazy as that may sound to so. Baby steps, baby steps. Besides, what LGBTI would want to be a leader in a church that condemns them so vehemently anyway.

So...as hard as it is to do...try to put aside your hatred for just a moment and THINK. This is a delicate situation that needs clear minds and an organized approach.

Step one: Make the fundamentalist Christian see that homosexuality is (usually) not a choice and why. That is a HUGE step. That will/should open up the dialogue, especially with the open-minded leaders in the church, of which there are many. Yes there are! You just don't hear about them anymore than heterosexuals hearing about the normal lives that the gay community lead. The squeaky wheels prevail...on the Internet, in the media and on this forum.

 

[sojourner]

You're the one making all of the comments about gays being second class citizens, not me. Have you seen me write one typical gay-bashing comment on this forum?

Yes, I have. When you asserted that it's not their "fault," that assumes that there must be some "fault" present. There isn't. You, yourself said that God views homosexuality as an abomination. That automatically relegates those who identify as such to a lower class than the rest of us in God's eyes. That is "gay-bashing." And it is asserting that they are, somehow, second class citizens.

Your assertion that something "not-normal" happening to them to "change" them intimates that they are second class citizens, because it infers that they should not be the way they are.

The only one you THINK you have seen is the one in which I said "not to say that they should be leaders in the church".

And that's quite enough, right there. To say nothing of what I pointed out above.

I know it takes a little thought (which I know you are capable of), but...as I have said, this thread was meant for the Christian reader, not directed AT the LGBT community.

It doesn't make any difference who it's "meant for." What's said is said, and your "facts" don't change according to your audience, or they're not really "facts" at all. And if they're not facts, then they're "opinion." And pretty pish-poor opinions, at that.

But when I discuss this with Christians, the vast majority (no hyperbole here) are totally unaware of the physiological aspects of sexual orientation and have assumed that homosexuality is purely a choice.

So? Lying to them isn't helping.

My comment "not to say that they should be leaders in the (fundamental evangelical Christian) church" is purely a concession on their behalf, as crazy as that may sound to so.

Concessions don't help either. The wacko fundigelicals need to reevaluate their beliefs, their stance, and their "Christian" treatment of those who identify as homosexual, or nothing will really change. Making those who are seen as "monsters" into "lesser monsters" is obstructive in their bid to be recognized as fully-participating human beings.

Baby steps, baby steps.

Yeah, and a lot of well-meaning ministers wrote to MLK, too, suggesting that he not move too quickly or too forcefully in his bid for civil rights. He addressed that very eloquently in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail." You should read it.

Besides, what LGBTI would want to be a leader in a church that condemns them so vehemently anyway.

That's not your issue to judge. It's solely their issue, and they're fully capable of making that call without your guidance.

So...as hard as it is to do...try to put aside your hatred for just a moment and THINK.

I don't harbor hatred. But I do speak out proactively against the kind of insidious and systemic violence that you're perpetrating here -- well-meaning as it may be. It's still discriminatory and completely buys into the mind set that homosexuality isn't normal.

I have thought a lot about it. I took a graduate course in ethics in a violent world, in which just such issues of complicity were the focal point. The systemic treatment of homosexuals follows the exact same patterns identified in the treatment of American slaves and the Jews in the Holocaust. But maybe you're so busy justifying homosexuality as "not-normal" that you are unaware of the systems that oppress those who are "different."

This is a delicate situation that needs clear minds and an organized approach.

Seeing homosexuality as anything but completely normal is not clear thinking.

Step one: Make the fundamentalist Christian see that homosexuality is (usually) not a choice and why.

You're not doing that. It's not a choice because it's normal for them to be that way, not because they've been genetically-altered.
"Step one" ought to be making the fundamentalist Christian see that her/his method of discrimination is no different than that targeting the slaves and the Jews -- as I've done here.

You just don't hear about them anymore than heterosexuals hearing about the normal lives that the gay community lead.

Many of them don't lead normal lives, because they're continually discriminated against and denied equal rights.

 

[sojourner]

You're right...it was an absurd analogy.

Only absurd because I forgot to point out that, just as a majority of blacks are proud of their racial heritage and don't wanna be white, don't need to be white to be normal, and continue to try to live lives of dignity in the face of continuing systemic violence, so do many homosexuals take pride in their sexual nature, don't wanna be "straight," don't need to be "straight," and just want to live their lives with dignity and equality.

 

[John Boanerges]

I refuse to focus on any hypothesis that says "God didn't mean for them to be this way." That just makes homosexuality a group with a disability. Homosexuality isn't a disability.

I DO understand that. But, "disability" is not the right word. I am not saying that homosexuality is a disability or mental disorder. It is a physiological event that takes place before the individual even knows what sex is, determining that individual's sexual orientation. It was no more invited than those who were born intersex, sharing physical traits of both sexes. Except for the extreme emotional burdens that these conditions put on these individuals, they can be completely normal (without disability) in all other regards...as normal as humans can be in today's world.

Once the truth about the non-choice nature of homosexuality is known, the question in the fundamentalist mind will be "If that is so, why does God condemn this practice in the Bible?" When we turn to science for an answer, we see the proposed physiological reasons for homosexuality - and the scientific observations in nature that some scientists believe support them - and we may be able to conclude that homosexuality was more or a choice in Old testament Times than it is today.

But...and this is a BIG but...there are those who will argue that homosexuality is STILL a choice even though the individual is physiologically gay and cite those who have made the transition as proof. Christians will also cite the unlimited power of the Holy Spirit as the way this can be accomplished. I personally believe this is possible IF the person WANTS to change...anything. Granted, changing sexual orientation would have to be one of the hardest things in the world to do, but...if the individual wants it badly enough (a HUGE if) and if they believe in the power of change, it can happen...and has happened.

The LGBTI community wants total, unequivocal acceptance as in women's suffrage and civil rights for Black Americans. That may be a long way off, partly because, in the minds of most Christians, that would be like comparing apples and screwdrivers. As crazy as it sounds, women and Black Americans were considered innately inferior for many reasons, some stemming from horrible Christian misconceptions. With the gay community, it is more than that. To put it bluntly, there is a disgust factor that blinds the "homophobe", which is a misnomer, of course. Heteros are not afraid of gays, they find their sexual practices distasteful. That is just being honest and not saying anything that you don't already know.

It is the "unnatural acts" that Christians can't get past, even tho, YES, they are as guilty of as many other unnatural acts as any. And these "normal" people CHOOSE to perform these acts in the name of variety, boredom and entertainment, not because they can't control the innate desire to do so(e.g. sodomy, bestiality/"beastiality", pedophilia). So yes, heterosexuals have no business throwing stones. We're all waaay over-sexed.

So, choice does play a role and there is, therefore, still room for "the law" (Scripture) to help govern these choices. BUT...the difficult task ahead of us in understanding the underlying factors that affect those choices. If one does not care to address those factors and wants the status quo to continue, then the war will rage on as will the consequences of our choices.

 

[John Boanerges]

Yes, I have. When you asserted that it's not their "fault," that assumes that there must be some "fault" present. There isn't. You, yourself said that God views homosexuality as an abomination. That automatically relegates those who identify as such to a lower class than the rest of us in God's eyes. That is "gay-bashing." And it is asserting that they are, somehow, second class citizens.

I said the Bible has verses that state homosexuality is an abomination. You can take that up with Him. It also lists many other things as such, of which many Christians are guilty. That is why Jesus came to earth and carried out His ministry and allowed Himself to be crucified. We are all guilty of sin that limits our joy and productive lives on this earth.

Your assertion that something "not-normal" happening to them to "change" them intimates that they are second class citizens, because it infers that they should not be the way they are.

No it doesn't. I understand why you keep saying that, and it is a fine point, but it is not true. But the fact remains that the majority of people in the US (again, this is fact, not hyperbole) believe that homosexuals should not be the way they are. Many are becoming tolerant from a civil rights standpoint but, when asked, they still think it is abnormal to be gay. After all, homosexuals are only 1.7% of the population. That is not just a minority. It is a "micrority".

It doesn't make any difference who it's "meant for." What's said is said, and your "facts" don't change according to your audience, or they're not really "facts" at all. And if they're not facts, then they're "opinion." And pretty pish-poor opinions, at that.

Whatever.

Concessions don't help either. The wacko fundigelicals need to reevaluate their beliefs, their stance, and their "Christian" treatment of those who identify as homosexual, or nothing will really change. Making those who are seen as "monsters" into "lesser monsters" is obstructive in their bid to be recognized as fully-participating human beings.

I agree that Christians need to reevaluate their beliefs. (For example, they are completely wrong about the impending return of Christ.) But I disagree that concessions don't help. This has been a process for me and it will be one for the majority of other Christians, partly because there are so many misconceptions and deceptions out there.

Yeah, and a lot of well-meaning ministers wrote to MLK, too, suggesting that he not move too quickly or too forcefully in his bid for civil rights. He addressed that very eloquently in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail." You should read it.

Do you claim to know the minds of all leaders in the church? Isn't that fundamental to the bigotry you claim to fight against?

T

That's not your issue to judge. It's solely their issue, and they're fully capable of making that call without your guidance.

I don't claim to be the judge. I just know my side of the fence better than you do just as you you know yours better than I. if you don't believe that is true, then you are as much of a bigot as any one else in this battle.

I don't harbor hatred. But I do speak out proactively against the kind of insidious and systemic violence that you're perpetrating here -- well-meaning as it may be. It's still discriminatory and completely buys into the mind set that homosexuality isn't normal.

I'm perpetuating violence here? Why do you always have to take things to a different level. Your one-up-manship is really getting annoying. Can you take it down a notch or six?

I have thought a lot about it. I took a graduate course in ethics in a violent world, in which just such issues of complicity were the focal point. The systemic treatment of homosexuals follows the exact same patterns identified in the treatment of American slaves and the Jews in the Holocaust. But maybe you're so busy justifying homosexuality as "not-normal" that you are unaware of the systems that oppress those who are "different."

I'm not that stupid. Anyone can see the similarities, just as anyone could look at a monkey and say "Hey, they look a lot like humans. I wonder if we came from them." It takes intelligence, insight and patience to see the difference. I know you are not unintelligent.

Seeing homosexuality as anything but completely normal is not clear thinking.

It's clear that you believe this. Getting the other 98.3% to believe it is the trick. Hint: Gay Pride parades don't help anymore than ignorant and offensive Christians carrying signs that say "God hates ****" helps their position.

You're not doing that. It's not a choice because it's normal for them to be that way, not because they've been genetically-altered.
"Step one" ought to be making the fundamentalist Christian see that her/his method of discrimination is no different than that targeting the slaves and the Jews -- as I've done here.

I agree with the premise but disagree with the order. Again, "genetically altered" is not accurate as the reason for homosexuality.

Many of them don't lead normal lives, because they're continually discriminated against and denied equal rights.

Agreed. Hey, what do you know? Detente!

 

[sojourner]

- and we may be able to conclude that homosexuality was more or a choice in Old testament Times than it is today.

that's patent eisegesis, and that dog just won't hunt. It couldn't have been more of a choice back then, because it's much, much easier to live that lifestyle now than even 30 years ago, much less than in a society where honor and shame were sexually embodied. To "take it like a woman" embodied shame, because women embodied shame. Waaaaay too much cultural taboo there to justify "choice." In that kind of culture, the only plausible explanation is that some people were so physically and psychologically "wired that way," that the compulsion to be homosexual was stronger than the very strong cultural urge to be honorable.

The LGBTI community wants total, unequivocal acceptance as in women's suffrage and civil rights for Black Americans. That may be a long way off, partly because, in the minds of most Christians, that would be like comparing apples and screwdrivers. As crazy as it sounds, women and Black Americans were considered innately inferior for many reasons, some stemming from horrible Christian misconceptions. With the gay community, it is more than that. To put it bluntly, there is a disgust factor that blinds the "homophobe", which is a misnomer, of course. Heteros are not afraid of gays, they find their sexual practices distasteful. That is just being honest and not saying anything that you don't already know.

But again, shifting blame and mitigating the level of monster status isn't going to help.

It is the "unnatural acts" that Christians can't get past, even tho, YES, they are as guilty of as many other unnatural acts as any.

And those folks are so closed-minded that they will simply conclude from your premise: "Then they should be taught not to act on those urges," which simply further oppresses the homosexual from expressing her or himself sexually.

e.g. sodomy, bestiality/"beastiality", pedophilia

\
Hold on there, Cochise! Sodomy, beastiality and pedophilia are much different than homosexuality. You should know that! Sodomy is a legal term, denoting unwanted penetration of the anus. It's an act of violence, not attraction. Beastiality and pedophilia are both certifiable sexual aberrations. The homosexual orientation is completely normal. The acts of love and attraction between homosexual persons are wholly different than the three you mention here and should not be confused.

So, choice does play a role and there is, therefore, still room for "the law" (Scripture) to help govern these choices.

Not if it doesn't adequately address the homosexual situation, which it doesn't. Good luck trying to convince the wacko fundigelicals that the bible is deficient in such areas.

I think you're still operating from a standpoint that there's something inherently wrong with homosexuality and homoerotic acts. Is that true?

 

[John Boanerges]

Only absurd because I forgot to point out that, just as a majority of blacks are proud of their racial heritage and don't wanna be white, don't need to be white to be normal, and continue to try to live lives of dignity in the face of continuing systemic violence, so do many homosexuals take pride in their sexual nature, don't wanna be "straight," don't need to be "straight," and just want to live their lives with dignity and equality.

The main differences being that most Black Americans were/are heterosexual and otherwise "normal" in the eyes of others, with their foreign roots and skin color being the main things that kept them from being accepted, not their overt sexual practices and alternative lifestyles. (And let's not forget the continuous anti-Christian rhetoric coming out of the LGBT community.That is setting the cause back eons, even if it is deserved to a great extent.)

Again...apples and screwdrivers.