Homosexuality: A chosen trait, or gentetically aquired?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

This question is a major underlying factor of the general homosexual debate, the answer of which can narrow the scope in questioning its morality.



Are people born gay, or do they choose to be?
Can someone be blamed for their sexual orientation, or is it subject to factors we have no control over?

[GhostBear]

You have claimed that sexual oriention is changeable, yet you have repeatedly failed to provide any support for your claim.

Behold my support, what you have said yourself;

Paraphilla is by definition not sexual oriention. You cannot just change the definition of sexual orientation to include what you wish it to include.

The point remains. You have claimed sexual oriention is changeable. Yet there exists no evidence of anyone changing form homosexual to heterosexual. This includes the whole of psychology including the practitioners of reparative therapy. Those exalting reparative therapy are the one’s making claims that hundreds of thousands of individuals have changed from homosexual to heterosexual yet the individuals and organizations making these claims are unable to substantiate them.

response to sexual objects or situations which may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity

You want futher proof? Don't you think that there are some homosexuals out there that are so because of a rational reason?

If such individuals exist, where are they then?

If such reason(s) exist what are they? Why aren’t mental health professionals and researchers stumbling across such reasons? Why after nearly 150 years of the existence of psychology as a science has no one ever found evidence that one of these reasons is a potential “cause” of homosexuality?

What I presented is not a strawman

Bull. You yourself say;

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

Now finish what I wrote instead of just using selective arguing.

I went on to say:

“You have claimed that sexual oriention is changeable, yet you have repeatedly failed to provide any support for your claim. In the same way the organizations that claim to have changed hundreds of thousands of homosexuals into heterosexuals cannot provide any support for their claims”

You have repeatedly made such claims and you have repeatedly failed to support your claims.

AND you come up with arguments relating to Christian ministries which I don't give two hoots about. I'm not going to counter it by saying "yes they are" or anything of the sort. If anything I would agree that they are ineffectual. I am not going to support their methods. I am not going to say people should try and follow any such method.

I asked if you could identify non-Christian organizations who are engaging in reparative therapy….you could not.

There exists no evidence form anyone much less the only groups claiming to be able to and have changed homosexual to heterosexuals.

None.

Zip.

Zilch

Nada

It's like saying"because person Y tries to strap a bunch of fireworks to a chair was not able to go to the moon as intended space travel is impossible"

The big difference with your analogy is that those who went to the moon can provide evidence that they did so

For the following reasons:
Legitimate and ethical mental health professionals know homosexuality is not an illness and as such is not “curable”

I'm not trying to cure anything! I'm not saying homosexuality is some disease or any such nonsense! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS?

the response was to your suggestion that groups/individuals other than those associated with Christian ministries were engaging in some form of change or reparative therapy. No ethical therapist, social worker, counselor, psychologist, psychiatrist would participate in such therapy or condone such therapy for the reasons listed.

I am sorry you chose to see the reasons why ethical mental health professions would refuse to engage in such a hurtful activity as a personal attack

That said, the only justification for attempting to change homosexuals into something else is based on the notion that there is something inherently wrong with being a homosexual in the first place.

In the same way the organizations that claim to have changed hundreds of thousands of homosexuals into heterosexuals cannot provide any support for their claims

In what same way? Just how the hell am I the same?

Like these organizations….you cannot provide evidence

Legitimate and ethical mental health professionals do not and will not engage in a therapy that encourage and/or reinforce self hate in patients

I don't even want them to hate themselves or anything. All I want is to prove that genetics does not control a person. If anything, that would make a person feel better, no? Imagine how much better a person would feel if they realise that just because they have some genetics/ psychology that may change them into something they don't like they can find a way to change into something they do.

Your words contradict your denials of hatred:
“that may change them into something they don't like they can find a way to change into something they do.”

The very notion that changing sexual oriention is not just possible is based on the hate filled premise that there is something wrong or worth hating about homosexuality or being a homosexual.

All I want is people to realise they can control their own minds. If anything, that should do the opposite of self-loathing.

But the only reason to attempt to change ones sexual orientation is the very self loathing you rail against.

It's like going up to Luke Skywalker and saying "Just because your father is Darth Vader desn't mean you'll turn out like him. Genetics doesn't mean squat!"

What does internalizing loathing because others believe that you are morally or mentally wrong mean?

Legitimate and ethical mental health professionals do not and will not engage in a therapy shown to be harmful

And how is it harmful? Because of said Christian ministries? (aka quacks)

No, the studies conducted on persons who have been through reparative therapy show it to be harmful

“A significant proportion of reparative therapy patients sustain serious, lasting injuries. Having been misled into thinking that being gay is a mental disorder and something that can be changed if they'll only try hard enough, many people feel doubly flawed when a "cure" eludes them. "Frequently they become very, very depressed," a mental state that in many interviewees triggered such self-destructive behavior as unsafe sex, drug abuse or suicide attempts.
Attempting to alter sexual orientioan not only encourages self-hatred but often sours family relationships by spreading the myth that homosexuality results from poor parenting. Some patients suffer spiritually when they cannot do what they're told God requires. And a great many temporarily lose their capacity for real human intimacy. Repressing gay desires creates a void, not a true heterosexual.”
Michael Schroeder Ariel Shidlo, “Ethical Issues in Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapies: An Empirical Study of Consumers” Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical and Research Perspectives.

And a FINAL THING, this is not some form of treatments, it is something an individual does for themselves, not something for a doctor to do, or a minister, or anyone else. One's body is their own buisness

Based on self hatred and hatred of gays and lesbians.

[qutoe] But what I have stated is that After more than thirty years of innumerable Christian ministries practicing this “reparative therapy” and despite their claims of hundreds of thousands of homosexuals transformed into heterosexuals these groups are not able to offer up any evidence that anyone ANYONE has actually ever changed from homosexual to heterosexual.

Legitimate and ethical mental health professionals do not and will not engage in a therapy shown to be ineffective

All this proves is that their methods are ineffectual. Not that it is impossible. [/quote]So are you suggesting that people should continue to foster hatred for homosexuals just so gays and lesbians will feel enough self-loathing to try to be something they are not?

are you suggesting that irresponsible and unethical individuals continue to emotionally and spiritually abuse homosexuals because you want to pretend sexual oriention is a choice?

[GhostBear]

I have to admit, I have not gone back through the whole thread to see what evidence has been provided and debated. I have seen some of the NARTH info, and also the APA info recently cited by Ghost Bear. From this cursory inspection, it seems to me the weight is on the side that homosexuality, at least for the vast majority of homosexuals, is not a chosen trait.

ANother compelling line of evidence for me is the testimony of gays themselves. Nearly every homosexual person that I have heard discuss this says they did not choose their orientation, and I am not sure why so many people are unwilling to take this testimony at face value.

In addition, the fact that admitting to homosexuality has usually meant, at least here in the U.S., that one opens oneself up to persecution and even violence, and yet people still admit to being homosexual and that they can do nothing to change it even if they try (and some have) is very compelling in deed.

To assert that many or most homosexuals choose this as a sexual orientation in the face of these factors does not make sense to me. Why would anyone 'choose' to be a homosexual?

Remember when reading anything published by NARTH, you need to look closely at the claims being made and check the references. NARTH has a long history of selectively presenting only the data it wishes to and ignoring any and all data that contradicts its political agenda.

[GhostBear]

OK. Let me see if I have this straight, and my apologies if I don't have it straight.

scorpia is claiming, if I can rephrase hopefully correctly, that genetics is not destiny. Just because one has a genetic predisposition towards a certain behavior (e.g. homosexuality) does not mean that is their destiny.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

She is pointedly noting that so-called (Christian) reparative therapies are not what she is talking about. She is allowing that they may be completely ineffective, but that this does not negate the fact that other methods, perhaps employed solely by the individual themself, may result in an individual not following any genetic pre-disposition to homosexuality.

Ghost Bear is claiming that the so-called Christian reparative therapies have shown no evidence of success. He notes that psychological professionals and professional organizations do not believe that any reparative therapy can change a person's sexual orientation.

Please remember that all the evidence suggest that sexual oriention is an inborn and immutable characteristic. This does not necessarily make its origin genetic. Even though a significant amount of evidence presents a genetic origin there exists evidence for a non-genetic yet inborn origin such as the research by Anthony Bogaert showing the fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation, each older brother increases a man's chances of being gay by about 33%. Blanchard, R. (2001). Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality. Hormones and Behavior, 40:105-114.

[scorpia]

OK. Let me see if I have this straight, and my apologies if I don't have it straight.

scorpia is claiming, if I can rephrase hopefully correctly, that genetics is not destiny. Just because one has a genetic predisposition towards a certain behavior (e.g. homosexuality) does not mean that is their destiny.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

No, That's mostly it.

Paraphilla is by definition not sexual oriention. You cannot just change the definition of sexual orientation to include what you wish it to include.

I was using your definition.

Look, the point of a paraphiliac is, they are not interested in anything except the object which the paraphilia is about. Whatever would get anyone else is interested won't affect them at all and whatever usual program such a person has it won't work until the object is shown.

If such individuals exist, where are they then?

If such reason(s) exist what are they? Why aren’t mental health professionals and researchers stumbling across such reasons? Why after nearly 150 years of the existence of psychology as a science has no one ever found evidence that one of these reasons is a potential “cause” of homosexuality?

Having a rotten previous partner, for one. Who'd be interested in the opposite gender if their experience has shown nothing but abuse from them. Considering such a case, I couldn't blame them. I trust you may have heard of some cases such of this?

Your words contradict your denials of hatred:
“that may change them into something they don't like they can find a way to change into something they do.”

The very notion that changing sexual oriention is not just possible is based on the hate filled premise that there is something wrong or worth hating about homosexuality or being a homosexual.

Ummm, why is that hateful, towards gay people? How does that implying that my opinion is that something is necessarily wrong with a gay person?

But the only reason to attempt to change ones sexual orientation is the very self loathing you rail against.

Nooooooooo, I just like control myself, and thought it might be nice if people could realise that they can control themselves. More power to them if they want it, and if not, well whatever floats their boat.

What does internalizing loathing because others believe that you are morally or mentally wrong mean?

Uh, excuse me, I'm not quite sure what you meant there.

So are you suggesting that people should continue to foster hatred for homosexuals just so gays and lesbians will feel enough self-loathing to try to be something they are not?

No.........

are you suggesting that irresponsible and unethical individuals continue to emotionally and spiritually abuse homosexuals because you want to pretend sexual oriention is a choice?

And no.

I'm suggesting that people should not feel that they are limited by what genetics or whatever tells them to be. And if some other person tells them to change it because of what they say, and not because of the individual wants, they should be told to get bent.

[micatala]

Please remember that all the evidence suggest that sexual oriention is an inborn and immutable characteristic. This does not necessarily make its origin genetic. Even though a significant amount of evidence presents a genetic origin there exists evidence for a non-genetic yet inborn origin such as the research by Anthony Bogaert showing the fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation, each older brother increases a man's chances of being gay by about 33%. Blanchard, R. (2001). Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality. Hormones and Behavior, 40:105-114.

If I am not mistaken, there is also evidence that there may be a homosexuality-heterosexuality continuum, so that a person could any of various 'shades of' homosexual or heterosexual. If I have time, I will see if I can find articles on this.

That said, the only justification for attempting to change homosexuals into something else is based on the notion that there is something inherently wrong with being a homosexual in the first place.

I'm suggesting that people should not feel that they are limited by what genetics or whatever tells them to be. And if some other person tells them to change it because of what they say, and not because of the individual wants, they should be told to get bent.

I agree that most (if not all) current reparative therapies or other efforts to change homosexuals to heterosexuals are based on the idea that something is wrong with being homosexual.

On the other hand, scorpia is arguing that a person should feel free to at least attempt the change if they so desire. I don't see anything wrong with this. Certainly people should be free from coercion, especially when it is based on faulty assumptions and bogus science. But individuals should also be free to pursue their own happiness as they see fit.

Now, you could argue that no one would want to do this unless they had internalized a 'self-loathing' based on negative responses to their being homosexual, but I am not sure there is evidence for this either. A separate question would be "why would anyone want to change from homosexual to heterosexual?" Obviously, the biggest current reason is the social pressure and persecution that many homosexuals experience. The fact that this is the main reason does not mean there might not be other reasons. Maybe there are none, but that does not seem to me to have been established.

After all . . .

Having a rotten previous partner, for one. Who'd be interested in the opposite gender if their experience has shown nothing but abuse from them. Considering such a case, I couldn't blame them. I trust you may have heard of some cases such of this?

I have known a few women who have 'gone off men' because of their bad experiences with women. Some have engaged in homosexual activity. Does this mean their orientation changed? I am not sure. One I know now describes herself as bisexual. Did she have these bisexual tendencies before and only now is acting on them? I don't know.

[GhostBear]

Paraphilla is by definition not sexual oriention. You cannot just change the definition of sexual orientation to include what you wish it to include.

I was using your definition.

Not my definition…the definition provided by the APA and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the DSM-IV-TR. The universal professional manual for classifying and diagnosing mental illness. Homosexuality is NOT a paraphilia and is NOT a mental illness.

Look, the point of a paraphiliac is, they are not interested in anything except the object which the paraphilia is about. Whatever would get anyone else is interested won't affect them at all and whatever usual program such a person has it won't work until the object is shown.

Look at the defintion - paraphilia (in Greek para παρά = besides and '-philia' φιλία = love) is a term that describes sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations which may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity.
This does nto describe homoseuxlas no matter how much you desperately want it to. Homoseuxlas respond phsyically and emotionally to HUMAN BEINGS not objects

If such individuals exist, where are they then?

If such reason(s) exist what are they? Why aren’t mental health professionals and researchers stumbling across such reasons? Why after nearly 150 years of the existence of psychology as a science has no one ever found evidence that one of these reasons is a potential “cause” of homosexuality?

Having a rotten previous partner, for one. Who'd be interested in the opposite gender if their experience has shown nothing but abuse from them. Considering such a case, I couldn't blame them. I trust you may have heard of some cases such of this?

No I have not. and neither has anyone else.

Your words contradict your denials of hatred:
“that may change them into something they don't like they can find a way to change into something they do.”

The very notion that changing sexual oriention is not just possible is based on the hate filled premise that there is something wrong or worth hating about homosexuality or being a homosexual.

Ummm, why is that hateful, towards gay people? How does that implying that my opinion is that something is necessarily wrong with a gay person?

Did you read your own post?

But the only reason to attempt to change ones sexual orientation is the very self loathing you rail against.

Nooooooooo, I just like control myself, and thought it might be nice if people could realise that they can control themselves. More power to them if they want it, and if not, well whatever floats their boat.

A heterosexual can engage in same sex acts (in prison for example) but that act does not change that individual’s sexual oriention that person is still a heterosexual

So are you suggesting that people should continue to foster hatred for homosexuals just so gays and lesbians will feel enough self-loathing to try to be something they are not?

No.........

Then what other reason is there to promote the notion that of changing sexual oriention. What other reason is there to falsely associate sexual orientation with parphilia?

are you suggesting that irresponsible and unethical individuals continue to emotionally and spiritually abuse homosexuals because you want to pretend sexual oriention is a choice?

I'm suggesting that people should not feel that they are limited by what genetics or whatever tells them to be. And if some other person tells them to change it because of what they say, and not because of the individual wants, they should be told to get bent.

And no.

But that IS what you are suggesting singe after nearly forty years of causing suffering and pain and anguish with the false premise of “changing” sexual oriention you wish to continue hurting people because you ant homosexuals to “control” themselves.

past attempts to rid people of headaches by drilling holes in their skulls have been unsuccessful but just because the past methods of this process have been unsuccessful doesn’t mean anything, by your standards this method of “relieving” headaches should continue until medicine gets it right and the fact that such “treatment” causes pain and suffering and doesn’t work is not an issue

[GhostBear]

Please remember that all the evidence suggest that sexual oriention is an inborn and immutable characteristic. This does not necessarily make its origin genetic. Even though a significant amount of evidence presents a genetic origin there exists evidence for a non-genetic yet inborn origin such as the research by Anthony Bogaert showing the fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation, each older brother increases a man's chances of being gay by about 33%. Blanchard, R. (2001). Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality. Hormones and Behavior, 40:105-114.

If I am not mistaken, there is also evidence that there may be a homosexuality-heterosexuality continuum, so that a person could any of various 'shades of' homosexual or heterosexual. If I have time, I will see if I can find articles on this.

You seem to be referring to the Kinsey scale.

Kinsey conceived of the idea that human sexuality transverse a continuum form completely heterosexual to completely homosexual.

That said, the only justification for attempting to change homosexuals into something else is based on the notion that there is something inherently wrong with being a homosexual in the first place.

I'm suggesting that people should not feel that they are limited by what genetics or whatever tells them to be. And if some other person tells them to change it because of what they say, and not because of the individual wants, they should be told to get bent.

I agree that most (if not all) current reparative therapies or other efforts to change homosexuals to heterosexuals are based on the idea that something is wrong with being homosexual.

On the other hand, scorpia is arguing that a person should feel free to at least attempt the change if they so desire. I don't see anything wrong with this.

At issue (and the issue with the APA) is that the motivation for such is based on that idea that there is something wrong in the first place. The goal of any ethical counselor in such a case is not to change or even engage in an attempt to change sexual oriention (which results not just in failure but in significant harm to their client) but rather to address the notion that something is wrong and the self-hatred that prompted the desire for change in the first place.

It is not the seeking by the individual that is wrong it is the willful harming of the individual in a misguided attempt to change sexual orientation that is wrong

[micatala]

So if the individual harms him or herself in an attempt to change their sexual orientation, this is wrong? Or is it simply misguided? Should we not allow a person to attempt this on their own? Can we prove that all such attempts by an individual are harmful?

[scorpia]

Homosexuality is NOT a paraphilia and is NOT a mental illness.

Are you saying that a paraphilia and mental disease is one and the same?

Look at the defintion - paraphilia (in Greek para παρά = besides and '-philia' φιλία = love) is a term that describes sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations which may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity.

Which is what I'm saying.

This does nto describe homoseuxlas no matter how much you desperately want it to. Homoseuxlas respond phsyically and emotionally to HUMAN BEINGS not objects

It doesn't matter what sexuality you are, you respond to what your mind tells you too.

Did you read your own post?

Yes. And I fail to see what you mean. Maybe you have misread it.

Nooooooooo, I just like control myself, and thought it might be nice if people could realise that they can control themselves. More power to them if they want it, and if not, well whatever floats their boat.

A heterosexual can engage in same sex acts (in prison for example) but that act does not change that individual’s sexual oriention that person is still a heterosexual

I wasn't even reffering to the act.

Then what other reason is there to promote the notion that of changing sexual oriention.

Control.

But that IS what you are suggesting singe after nearly forty years of causing suffering and pain and anguish with the false premise of “changing” sexual oriention

Forty years? WTF?

you wish to continue hurting people because you ant homosexuals to “control” themselves

That is up to them. And what I do with myself is up to me.

[Wyvern]

I understand that the thread is about homosexuality, but I truly think that if you want to avoid having to continually defend yourself against people thinking you are anti-homosexual maybe a new thread should be created to state your case about control of oneself.