Nature or Nurture?

Radiofree West Hartford ^ | June 02, 2003 | Mark Publius

[Clint N. Suhks]

If the nurture argument is correct 100% of the time, why do the vast majority of gays have heterosexual siblings?

Because siblings aren’t always completely the same or always completely different. There’s absolutely no replicable scientific correlation that indicates that relationship. Just look at the dozens of MZ twin studies that have a concordance rate from 0% to 100%, there’s no reliable evidence either way especially your anecdotal evidence.

[Alberta's Child]

I think the evidence indicates that homosexuality has both a hereditary as well as an environmental cause. I remember reasing a very interesting article about research that was done on identical twins who were separated at birth and adopted by different families. If homosexuality were truly genetic, then these twins would always tend to be homosexual or heterosexual in pairs. But if homosexuality were truly caused by environmental factors, then the separated twin sibling of a homosexual would be no more likely to be homosexual than any random person that is sampled.

If I remember correctly, the results of the research indicated that homosexuality occurred in pairs of separated twins more frequently than in random pairs of people, but far less frequently than one would expect if homosexuality were only based on genetic factors.

[RJayneJ]

Quote of the Day by scarab9

[wai-ming]

A very wise man, about 35 years ago, warned that divorcing sexuality from its procreative purpose would create a slippery slope upon which definitive curbs upon sexual behavior would become impossible.

If sexuality were divorced from its "procreative purpose," would unmarried couples still be allowed to "live together"? How about birth control--would that have to be banned as well? Would married couples unable to have children be prohibited from having sex?

Looks like a "slippery slope" exists on both sides of the issue.

[Darksheare]

The exception is this:
Those that turn out 'okay' either are very good liars, or they have very strong character or 'strong wills', as some might say.
But that is very uncommon.
It's also a phallacy to state that they are 'okay'.
They aren't.
They have been affected by the action in many ways.
Some permanently.

Honestly, and truthfully, there is no such thing as "turning out okay" from such things.

[JohnGalt]

Once you concede that the 'end' justifies trumping property law, you concede that it must trump such simple things as legal definitions.

In fact, one could easily argue that recognizing homosexual marriage is the lesser evil of violating property right as you out-lined with one other (and there are hundred more) political faction demanding special rights.

[TheGeezer]

I'm not talking about making laws to prohibit practices that are now bearing fruit harmful to society. What I am advocating is personal responsibility regarding sexuality: I hope to persuade, rather than coerce. After all, the social-sexual morass we find ourselves in today is not the result of legislation, but of harmful changes in sexual mores.

As for living together, statistically "living together" provides no advantage regarding outcomes of legal commitments, e.g., marriage. The rate of marriage failure for couples who had lived together before marriage far exceeds the rate of failure for those who do not. The common element for successful marriage is largely the presence in both partners of strong mature religious sentiment that prevented living together before marriage and that guide the couple after marriage.

Birth control would not be prevented. As I said above, I hope to persuade, not coerce.

Would married couples unable to have children be prohibited from having sex?

This statement betrays a gross ignorance of traditional sexual morality, perhaps some intolerance of a conflicting view, and a liberal distortion of logic. But I will explain, if you wish.

Active suppression of procreative purpose is morally wrong. If one is incapable of procreation because of biological accidents, e.g., genetic, in utero, radiotherapeutic side effects, etc., one is not an active agent in suppression of procreative abilities. Moral agency is not an issue in such cases.

And again, finally, lest you still assume that I advocate legal mandate of traditional morality, I do not. What is immoral is not necessarily illegal...that is for the majority in a democracy to decide. Individuals may act as they see fit in matters not otherwise illegal. The harm they do to themselves is entirely their own affair.

And, finally, I assert that the slippery slope of permissiveness is far more dangerous than the one that may not even exist on the side of reason and self-restraint. One need only observe the fruits of the liberal mindset: with sexual permissiveness we have gained a high divorce rate, a permanent underclass of impoverished single parents, anitbiotic-resistant venereal diseases, widespread incurable herpetic afflictions, the AIDS epidemic, and assault upon the institution of marriage itself.

I think I'd rather have sexual mores that advocate a restraint of lust. The world you advocate - in which we now live - is evidence of the defects of your philosophical sentiments.

Regards

[John O]

Boys like that get labeled homosexual (and label themselves)because the interest is an assumed association by society. And indeeed there may be a gentic propensity to female interests or same sex attraction but one still has TO CHOOSE TO ACT upon it.

It's called "gender identity disorder" and it is very treatable and curable. I think Focus on the family had the article about it on their website.

[wai-ming]

Thanks for your explaining and supporting your statements.

I was interested in where you would "draw the line."

A lof of people on FR are adamantly opposed to homosexuality but give fornication and sexual behaviour among unmarried (different-sex) couples a pass.

In my opinion, to decry one type of "immoral" behaviour and not the others is inconsistent.

I would draw the line at marriage, not merely for procreative purposes.

[John O]

It's also a phallacy to state that they are 'okay'.
They aren't.
They have been affected by the action in many ways.
Some permanently.

Honestly, and truthfully, there is no such thing as "turning out okay" from such things.

I have to disagree. Not that they aren't affected, They are always affected. But that they aren't OK. Some molestation victims seek therapy (either secular or religious) and are OK.

Hi, I'm John O. And I'm a molestation victim. I'm OK. Admittedly it took a while to get things straightened out but now I am OK. (Have I shown you the latest picture of my daughter yet?)

I have met some people who did turn out OK. It was a struggle for them also but they were able to overcome. Sometimes God works through other people and sometimes he works directly. I guess in their cases he worked directly.

On the other hand I know of people who have never sought healing for their injuries and these things have come to the surface years later and totally ruined their lives.

May God heal us all

[thulldud]

The use of the meteorite at the Dome of the Rock as an excuse to label it an Islamic holy site, is idolatry.

The Dome of the Rock (Jerusalem) is built over exposed bedrock, not a meteorite. The Kaaba (Mecca) does contain one; that may be the intended reference. IIRC, it was considered holy by the pagans, Islam, which it predates, just took it over.

[Darksheare]

It's still a phallacy to say they are OK.
To say they are OK implies they aren't affected.
They are affected, and will be for the rest of their lives no matter how much therapy they get.

THAT is what has to be brought to terms.
(Otheriwse, it's denial.)

Hi, I'm B.Keller.
My wife was a serial molestation/rape victim, and I have had to deal with multiple instances of such wrongness throughout my life.
I have had to learn the 'psychosis of the disease' in order to be able to keep my marraige, as well as some friendships, together.
My own family has had such things happen.
I know what happened to my wife, and why she does certain things still.
I understand the WHY of certain behaviors.
What comes next is the "How to modify such behavior" phase.

The only one who can make people OK is God.
But only if they let Him do so.

[Ingtar]

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

There are plenty of prohibitions in the Bible against homosexuality. I believe this one is more of a stretch. It is a good verse to use on the nature worshippers (envirowackos) though. Or for those that believe that they are doing God's will when having more children than they can afford. (I believe the earth is replenished now.)

[TheGeezer]

You are absolutely right in demanding consistency in a position on sexual morality.

Regards

[First Amendment]

I am in the middle of the thread and people may have already answered you, but I am adding my cents worth... Having done a lot of study in this area, there may be a small ray of insight.
The reason men who were molested by homosexuals when adolescents(almost invariably adult or older males) sometimes "become" homosexual themselves, is that the molestation usually involves a type of seduction - the older male induces the youngster to feel some sexual gratification, which the boy feels very ashamed of. Often the use of alcohol or drugs helps the "seduction" along. If the older man is a teacher or priest, the boy is also afraid, and views the older man as an authority and it is very hard for him to speak out about the incident(s), especially if there was seduction involved.
Therefore, since the boy experienced some sexual gratification in all this (along with shame, fear, and some kind of force) this sexualizes him at a young age and the whole thing preys on his mind - festers - and often produces SSAAD later on.

The percentage of men and women with SSAD who were molested when young is much higher than among the general population. (Women who were molested by older men often develop SSAD because their molestation usually involves only force, with no sexual gratification for them, only fear and pain, resluting in fear of and hatred for men.)
BUT - homosexuals - those afflicted with SSAD - can change, if they want to enough.

[riri]

It is still so odd to me.

I do believe that whatever may have happened probably did include drugs and or alcohol. It gets even stranger.

At the age of 17, he fell head over heals in love with a 23 year old woman and moved in with her. She was a complete psychopath and very wordly. Had affairs with professors, backpacked across Europe, belonged to nudist clubs etc. I think she dabbled in bi-sexuality, also. We believe she may have encouraged him to engage in some kind of strange sexual behavior. We really don't know, nor do we really want to.

Long story short, after their eventual demise, he was never the same person. He seemed to be over the relationship but was just a changed person. He went through a really tough period of living from friend to friend, using alot of people to get by, etc. But for the last ten years he has been married and stable. Had two children, bought a home, no substance abuse, upworldly mobile. Then this...any insight? Your last post was helpful.

I might add that we don't know what he is going to say when he finished the sentence "I have been feeling like this since 1992..." but we both have a baaaad feeling.

Also, I should add that there is a step father in the equation since he was 5 years old whom he pretty much despises.

[riri]

BTW, I don't think you are dispensing advice. I just starting writing and it felt good to just write it all down, as it is really agonizing me.

[SSN558]

""..and makes a mockery of the command, "be fruitful and multiply"."

Since homosexuals do not reproduce and they have not become extinct, one can reach only one conclusion. They recruit.

[Quick1]

I didn't "choose" to be attracted to women. Neither did I "choose" to be repulsed by the thought of sex with another man. I can't imagine how a homosexual would be able to simply choose their sexuality, when I never did.

My guess is that for gay men, the thought of sex with another woman gives repulses them about as much as sex with another man does for me.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The Dome of the Rock (Jerusalem) is built over exposed bedrock, not a meteorite. The Kaaba (Mecca) does contain one; that may be the intended reference. IIRC, it was considered holy by the pagans, Islam, which it predates, just took it over.

Two stone idols?