So many things to say, but it all boils down to no one should have to fear for their life because of who they are.
That statement is completely true. You know, in faith-based circles, there's a lot of interest over whether or not homosexuals are truly born that way, or if there is an element of choice in the matter. I've met both, and some that you just can't pin down. However, the only conclusion that most people have come to is that we've been treating them like hell, and if we ever want to see them in heaven, we gotta do better first. I'd like to pose a question that this brings up, though. If homosexuality is inborn, as many now think, would that mean it is a genetic disease, seeing as homosexual couples cannot breed? This is NOT meant to be offensive in any way, I am looking for a CLINICAL view of what the ramifications of that finding would be. Lord knows that the ecumenical ramifications would be rather amazing. The part that saddens me is the comment about being unsafe to walk to his car in the dark. I thought that we had progressed a little past playing "smear the queer," but I'm sad to find that I was wrong.
I know you mean well, but you absolutely WILL offend people if you insist on referring to homosexuality as a disease. Just because it's genetic doesn't make it a 'disease'. That would be like calling dark hair a disease or the inability to taste that bitter chemical that only 1/4 of the population can taste that they make you taste in classes about genetics. Homosexuality is just different than heterosexuality - a homosexual is not diseased.
I wish more highly-religious people would think like that. If God loves everyone, why is He going to send everyone He hates to hell? I thought He didn't hate... Dunno, my 2c. At least his mother was understanding and accepting right from the beginning. Gives me a little faith in humanity, and it's quite low at the moment.
I was asking if it would be classified as one, not acting as though it was one. A genetic syndrome introduces some type of disability or disadvantage into the normal human genome. My Marfan's syndrome, for instance, makes me physically weaker, my joints deteriorate rapidly, and my aorta distend. My oldest daughter's ectodermal dysplasia means that she can't regulate her body temperature, her teeth, skin, hair and nails have specific deformities, and she will probably never develop a womanly figure when she goes through puberty. I would assume that MEDICALLY anything that causes one to form a pair bond that has no chance of being able to procreate is a disadvantage to continued species longevity, however, there are instances to the contrary. My question was merely what would medical science say. It has a large amount of bearing on what the ecumenical culture would say, as well as most people on the street. Many call it a mental illness, and using the criteria above, it could be classified that way, but it truly doesn't cause any debilitating effects short of social and legal stigma. Since those are truly outside factors, technically it's without debilitating effects. The only thing I could see as a downside is the removal of someone from the gene pool, as the last I checked it was still genetically impossible for male-male and female-female copulation to result in pregnancy (however, I did read a very thought-provoking short story on what could happen if science made it possible...) This is not meant to offend, however. This is a curiosity borne of what WOULD medical science call it if it were found to be hereditary. For my own purposes, while as a Christian I believe that it's not right, it's absolutely no different than a person that wants to cheat on his wife, or a person who steals. They're all sin, they're all things that we fell short on. Quit beating people up cause they're different than you. If I found out that theft or adultery was inborn, it would make me think rather hard about how I viewed those who did such things, and it might could lead to more understanding about the human side of them. There are a lot of people that bash homosexuals because they call it a "lifestyle choice," but if they're proven to have no choice, they might see things a lot differently. I hope people realize this was a scientific question, not a gay-bashing stunt. I'm not in a position to bash anyone for anything. Nobody is. But, how people percieve homosexuals WILL be influenced by the language they attach to it. And I, for one, want to know because I will be one of the people who, as both a minister and a counselor, will have to directly deal with the fallout. Consider it I have a vested interest in the outcome, basically cause no matter what I'll have angry parents to counsel and troubled teens to console, and I might appreciate any kind of help science will give me. And for the record, I don't tell gays they're going to hell. I tell them EVERYONE will go to hell without Jesus, which, according to my beliefs as a Christian, is a completely nonpartisan solution. There is no point in singling out anything as worse, for God said nobody's any worse than anyone else-we're all equally screwups. Hopefully I've clarified my point, but I'll probably still catch hell for this. I'm still curious, though.
I have a gay half-brother and a gay half-sister. In response to whether or not being gay is hereditary my sister asked "why would a person willingly choose a lifestyle which would lead to discrimination and being hated by many people?" L J
I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, and I apologize if it seems like I was.... I'll try again to make my point. (Which was that in general: difference does not equal illness; and specifically there is no reason to refer to homosexuality as an illness. Furthermore, if you refer to homosexuality as an illness, you are going to offend people.) So - Difference != disease. (Yes, I know that you gave other criteria for 'disease' - I will get to those in a minute.) I gave the example earlier of a person having dark hair. That is clearly a difference, and yet, clearly not a disease. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but even color blindness is not termed a 'disease' even though it can have negative effects, which brings me to the second part of your statement... Homosexuality could be called a disease because of 'negative' effects You made the assertion that perhaps homosexuality could be called a disease because the inability to reproduce could be a disadvantage to species longevity. There are some flaws with that assertion. Individuals that don't reproduce within a large and diverse population would have no significant effect on the population in the short term and the only possible long term effect would be the possibility of reducing the ratio of these genes in the 'pool' while not eliminating them. (see albino animals - genetic difference that removes protective coloration and causes the animal to be less likely to reproduce because it is more likely to be eaten before reaching maturity. And yet, there are still albino animals in the wild.) No one says homosexuals can't reproduce. (Actually, some people are trying to, but that's another discussion....) Many homosexuals have spent time in long term heterosexual relationships, some of which have produced offspring. Also, many homosexual couples are choosing to have children through surrogacy and / or artificial insemination - thus passing on DNA. If you talk about a society or a culture instead of just a population, there are several examples in tribal human societies and in the animal kingdom where members who did not produce offspring contributed directly to the survival of the group. You also mentioned legal and social stigma. (You say stigma, I say discrimination, but yet again, I digress.....) You answered this point yourself, and you did it well. I'm just restating what you said in order to emphasize it for the other people reading this. The legal and social stigma do not qualify homosexuality as a disease anymore than the legal and social stigma of being a black person in the united states made dark skin a disease. (Note - I'm mostly speaking historically here, the problem of racism in the US has vastly improved over the last 50 years or so. And yet, there are still people out there that consider dark skin or Jewish heritage a 'defect') Again, I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm trying to answer your question. -peace
The topic is so politically charged that the answer will vary depending on where and when you ask the question. The opinion that gets the most media in our current western culture says "it's perfectly normal". Rewind a hundred years or go to some other cultures and the answer is different. Many like to think of culture as a continuous line in one direction but historically it tends to swing from one extreme to another - who knows what "correct" the answer will be in a hundred years. Either way though, I think the topic is also too complex to pin down a single answer - Please forgive my comparison to a disease (I'm left-handed and was going to use left-handedness but it doesn't quite fit the second part) but I think it's a little like diabetes in that some people are born with a genetic predisposition and never develop it while events in others lives lead them to it. Interesting article here -->(Link)
Where's Nexxo? We could use his psychological incite here! Anyways, I took a course "History of the Future" in my freshman year of college. It was a bizarre course. One of the topics we discussed was love and lust. Attractive people = good for the mind. That's why we like to oggle the sexy women - our brains release pleasing chemicals. Perhaps homosexuality is linked to brain chemistry? *shrugs* What I would like to know is are there twins of different sexual preferences? Maybe that can help clear some theories up?
I think the story of the OP is quite inspirational in some ways and shows an example of a strong family and i suspect the son coming out seemed to have a positive effect on them. I dont see what the issue is about what other people do in their own bed room or the way which they choose to live their lives, ive known many gay and lesbian people in my time on this planet and some of whom have fantastic relationships what work very well and some even have kids and their are no issues their. I think the evils done to gay and lesbians are so much worse than anything which they have done and i have witnessed lives destroyed because of bigots who cant accept the fact people live their lives diferently, one boy i worked with as a youth worker was forced out of his school at the age of 15 when people found out he was gay and the school itself decided to remove him from the school rather than address the issues of prejudice. I dont consider it a disease or genetic abnormality as i know that most gay people would not change it for all the money in the world because their sexuality is part of what makes them a whole person. Im more affraid of prejudice than i am homosexuality as gay and lesbians do no harm to society where as prejudice creates violence and hatred ( often by religious fanatics... go figure! ), if people dont want to be or dont believe in homosexuality then dont be gay its not like people are making it compulsary unlike the folk who seem to want to get rid of homosexuality.
Technically if being gay is caused by a genetic difference then it IS a disease (It halts your ability to be successful in mating).
It is not a disease it is a preference, if it makes the person feel loved and like they belong and are involved in a loving relationship i dont see what the problem is, its not like it compulsary for straight folk to be gay so i dont see why people have a problem.
Ramble didn't say there was a problem, just pointing out that technically if it's hereditary and it causes breeding to be as good as impossible for someone, it could possiby be classed as a disease. He does have a point. My 2 cents? The religious right need to grow the hell up. The gay "community" needs to grow the hell up. The religious right have been persecuting homosexuals for far too long, any loving forgiving accepting religion should accept that as just another flaw if it's against their religion, not some show stopping problem that is massively more important than any other human flaw. The gay community could really do with helping this along though. It's hard for conservative traditionalists to say to everyone "this group of people are ok" when pretty much all that gets shown to the world are gay pride parades that look like cesspits of hedonism. Being gay doesn't need to be a big deal, I understand the backlash and the reason for gaypride, but it simply doesn't need to be part of a world that accepts homosexuals on equal terms as heterosexuals. If we're gonna say "look, this is no big deal" then both sides need to stop making a big deal out of it.
I have two very gay close friends and they both think it is due to environmental factors that contributed to them being homosexual. One of my friends father died when he was very young and the other friend father left the family when he was a baby. Both were brought up in a female house hold with a mother and two sisters. Both feel that not having a strong bond with a father had contributed to them being gay. I think a read somewhere that studies have shown men to be more sensitive when brought up in predominately female households. I am not sure if it is environmental, genetics or a mix of the two but credit to that guy he is very brave. After witnessing the effects of one of my friends coming out it can be very tough and cruel world out there.
Nexxo is on GMT... and I have to sleep and work sometimes. The nature of homosexuality is an interesting one. There is good research evidence that it is, in most cases, genetic. In the majority of cases it is definitely an issue of neurological wiring: we know that homosexuality occurs in all cultures, across all periods of history, irrespective of how well it is tolerated in the cultures in which it occurs. It is not a matter of lifestyle choice: you just are what you are. It occurs in animals too: it is documented in about 450 of all the vertebrate species. I'll come back to this in a second, so hang on to this factoid. There are a few cases where disrupted psychosexual development is responsible for the person's sexual orientation, but these are rare, and there are plenty of heterosexual manifestations of psychosexual disturbance too --gender choice appears to be a modulator rather than an expression of "true" homosexuality. Again, this is not a matter of choice: in this case you are what you are messed up to be. The confusion around whether homosexuality is a "disease", or more accurately, "disorder" comes from the fact that it precludes the whole function that sex is perceived to have: procreation. Some assumptions are made though: First, the correct definition of "disorder" is: harmful disfunction. So being an albino is definitely a dysfunction of pigmentation, but it is generally not harmful, so it is not regarded as a disorder as such. Same with a bunch of genetic or medical conditions. But when the dysfunction becomes harmful to a person's functioning (say, diabetes type I, Down's syndrome or whatever), then it is classed as a "disorder". Now, is a sexual attraction that prevents procreation a harmful dysfunction? Is it even a dysfunction? From a purely Darwinian/Dawkinsian perspective, it could be argued that it does sort of put a stop to survival of the species or passing on of genes. That would suggest that as a genetic trait, homosexuality would eventually be filtered out. But it clearly is not. So what is going on?
(Sorry for double post; work PC is playing up) We could look at sickle-cell anaemia as an analogy. At first glance it is a genetic condition that results in a harmful disorder: if you are a carrier of the gene from both parents, you risk impairment in functioning, and premature adult death (at least you get to procreate). On the flipside however, you are immune to Malaria, a disease that will definitely kill you before you even have a chance to grow up and procreate. But if you carry the gene from one parent only (which you are twice as likely to do), you have little of the associated impairments, but are still immune to Malaria! Win-win! So what appears to be, at face value, a harmful disorder does actually convey an important survival advantage. Hence it does not get filtered out of the gene pool. Remember that I mentioned homosexuality in 450 vertebrate species. In evolutionary terms, whatever exists is there because either it conveys a survival advantage, or because it does not convey a disadvantage. Until recently, homosexuality was regarded as lying purely in the latter category: it is a mutation, but because on the whole it does not actually stop a species from procreating, it is a harmless one, so it is not filtered out. But hang on: raising ten percent of your offspring to be a procreational dead end is actually quite a waste of energy and resources in nature's terms. So all these gay animals must be good for something... And research shows that actually, they are. In a Japanese species of monkey, lesbianism facilitates group bonding in their matriarchal groups. Without it, the group falls apart, and dies. In the (more bisexually inclined) Bonobo chimp we see something similar. In one species of bird, couples pair with a gay partner to form a menage a trois: this extra helping beek brings in more food and ensures better survival of the offspring (the gay partner benefits through the mechanism of "inclusive fitness": survival of the group with which he has genes in common). There are plenty of other examples where homosexual practices actually convey a benefit in survival of the group or species as a whole. Homosexuality, it turns out, is not only not harmful, it is even functional. This brings me nicely to the next point: as we saw in the above, sex is not just about procreation. It is also about emotional bonding, thus ensuring cohesive, stable group dynamics which ensure survival of the individual and the group. Marriage is a partnership after all... in more than just procreation. It is about pooling resources, co-operation and looking out for each other. And that is important whether you are gay or straight. Moreover we all know the value of an extended family: if you have gay family members who do not generate children of their own, they are free to help you look after yours, thus ensuring a better survival of the family tree. In the bigger, tribal picture, homosexuality makes good sense.
Mr Nexxo - While your post was excellent, there is one additional thing that I wish you had addressed. I mentioned it in my post above, but most the people who posted after me ignored it, so I'm going to reiterate it here - So - to all the people who say "Homosexuals can't reproduce - it's a disease - QED" Homosexuals can and do reproduce. All the time. (Not that that even matters - As Nexxo and I pointed out, individuals who do not harm the population at large and in many cases individuals who don't reproduce are actually a vital part of the survival of the group.)
I agree with Spec, but I disagree with KMS-oul. I grew up with 3 sisters and my mother, no father figure at all. And yet I am not homosexual. Everyone I know, knows this, but I occasionally act camp. Doesn't make me homosexual though. Homosexualilty is a mental decision (not necessarily a choice)
This is what makes the whole argument bizarre. The gene shouldn't exist, yet it does. This could either be caused by social and cultural pressure to reproduce, or by something else we don't understand. As it is now, we can assume that a few gay people still in the closet may have settled down with a female and mated, but perhaps they don't want to?
Breakfast television?? Wow! Wait, no... That's GMTV. Maybe next time, eh? I agree with pretty much everything Nexxo has said here. I also wonder if there isn't some 'purpose' to homosexuality that we simply don't understand yet. I agree that there are reasons to say that homosexuality is not a disorder, and that, apart from procreation and social stigma, there are no obvious disadvantages. But taking this reasoning further, are there any reasons why it is beneficial to homosexuals or society that homosexuals exist and can prosper. Or is it simply a random genetic quirk (ie. different wiring as you suggested) in the same way we have albinos and left-handers. Now there's a group the church could get stuck into... left-handers. Who needs 'em, eh? [joke]
