Yes, for all of you who have been waiting; I'm back. Anyway, the APA, as with all other organizations of scientists, only provides information backed up with empitical research. The essence of the APA's message is that the dearth of psychological data show a gay sexual orientation to be not amenable to change, inherent and not associated with any significant pathology--indeed, as with any sexual orientation. I realize moving from this research into a proclamation supporting marriage is a political move, with significant social ramifications. Nonetheless, the point seems to be this: if the research shows some humans will have a minority sexual orientaion not associated with pathology, it is reasonable to assume they will couple. Why not provide legal sanction? Thus far, I have seen a lot of responses from Bible citations to personal "I do not believe" statements. Yet, the fact remains. The dearth of research shows sexual orientation to be without conscious selection, immutable and not associated with pathology. From the Bell, Hammersmith and Weinberg studies, to recent studies with Heatherly, Savin-Williams and others. And yes, I will discuss any of those. So, the point is simple. The research supports these ideas, so what is with the discrimination. And, let me just say, to address my post, you will need to tackle the dearth of research. Science could care less about your opinion. We don't take votes in science. We investigate. And the investigation has led to the conclusion that gay--shock, shock--are humans, without associated pathology. Why treat them as such?

I do not believe for one second that homosexuality if something your born with.....

When you decide to become gay you have commited a sin...and you are not born with sin...so therefore I do not believe in homosexuality as something your born with.

This should be an interesting..............

JJB, did you choose your sexual orientation?

Of course.

I knew what gays were when I was a kid, and I knew what was right.

I chose to be strait.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I do not believe for one second that homosexuality if something your born with.....

When you decide to become gay you have commited a sin...and you are not born with sin...so therefore I do not believe in homosexuality as something your born with.

Do you have any evidence to support this "belief"?

I can tell you that I never made a decision to "become gay"....why do you believe that I did?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Of course.

I knew what gays were when I was a kid, and I knew what was right.

I chose to be strait.

I notice in your post that you don't mention having any gay feelings or desires, but I have to assume that since you do mention that you "chose" to be straight, that you did have homosexual desires that you "chose" to ignore. True? Or did you just know what gays were and you decided not to "become" gay?

But jere, reading your statement above, I thought Christians believed we are born with sin.

neuro, It is obvious that for some reason of your own you are trying hard to justify homosexuality.You also state that you are uninterested in personal opinions. Well personal opinions are what we have to contend with in this life. We all have one, some contradictory-some in agreement. Your scientific viewpoints will have little impact on people of contrary beliefs.

I am hetro, and I know you have stated that you are uninterested in my personal opinion, here it is anyway.

One of the problems of the human race is that many of us spend intirely too much time worrying about other peoples business.
The way I choose to spend my waking hours is of no consequence to you or vice-versa. My old grandmother used to say sweep around your own doorstep before speaking against your neighbor.
You need to worry less about what we consider to be transgressions of others and more about how we can help each other thru the trials and tribulations of life on earth.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I notice in your post that you don't mention having any gay feelings or desires, but I have to assume that since you do mention that you "chose" to be straight, that you did have homosexual desires that you "chose" to ignore. True? Or did you just know what gays were and you decided not to "become" gay?

Lol, nice pick up.

No I did not have any sexual feelings toward men. I dont think kids are geniunely attracted to anything for a while...so in saying that, I go back and tell you that I knew homosexuality was wrong, so I developed in liking girls.

And believe it or not, I have only ever been attracted to one girl. And before you ask, NO GUYS. lol.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
But jere, reading your statement above, I thought Christians believed we are born with sin.


Some do...and I guess I understand why.

Here is my OPINION.

We are born in the likness of God (theres your no sin theory) directly into a world of sin. But do you have to teach a kid to lie? Or to talk back?

I really dont think so. You may say that it just adaptation to the world enviroment...but I think its just something natural that we deal with. Everyones a sinner.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I do not believe for one second that homosexuality if something your born with.....

When you decide to become gay you have commited a sin...and you are not born with sin...so therefore I do not believe in homosexuality as something your born with.

Are you kidding???
Homosexuality depends on your level of hormones. There is a book that explains it very well: "Why men don't listen and women can't read maps".
I respect everyone's views but yours are a bit harsh. There are many homosexuals that have been discriminated and even killed for their feelings. It is sad there are people who still believe it's something you choose.

Originally posted by Green_Eyed_Girl
Are you kidding???
Homosexuality depends on your level of hormones. There is a book that explains it very well: "Why men don't listen and women can't read maps".
I respect everyone's views but yours are a bit harsh. There are many homosexuals that have been discriminated and even killed for their feelings. It is sad there are people who still believe it's something you choose.

People have been killed for being a Christian. People have been killed for being white or Black. People have been killed for looking at someone the wrong way.

I think you all are taking this worse than I meant. I do not hate people for being homosexual. I am not homophobic. I have gay friends.

I just do not believe it is something you are born with.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

No I did not have any sexual feelings toward men. I dont think kids are geniunely attracted to anything for a while...so in saying that, I go back and tell you that I knew homosexuality was wrong, so I developed in liking girls.


Given what you say here, where is this "choice" you say you made?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Given what you say here, where is this "choice" you say you made?

Like I said when your a kid youre really not attracted to either side. You chose to quit worrying about "cooties" and things and mold yourself into liking someone.

If I would have let myself develop into liking a guy (which before anyone says anything of course never happened) than I wold have made a choice to be Gay.

I followed in the right direction, and I finally fell in love last year.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
People have been killed for being a Christian. People have been killed for being white or Black. People have been killed for looking at someone the wrong way.

I think you all are taking this worse than I meant. I do not hate people for being homosexual. I am not homophobic. I have gay friends.

I just do not believe it is something you are born with.

Well I'm glad that you are not homophobic. However, people who think like you usually are, and I don't want to generalize but it's true.
Anyway, how did you choose you wanted to like girls? I remember the first time I liked a boy, I was like 4, and I didn't even know that there are people who were homosexual. I never even thought of the possibility of being attracted to a woman. It's all chemistry, you do not choose. If it was easy as you say I guess we could choose who we want to love and when we want to fall out of love, don't you think?

I think people do chose when to fall in love and fall out of love.

You just do not fall out of love with someone. If you begin to love them...they either change your mind by their actions, or you just realize their not as fun or flirty as you like, and just like losing interest in a tv show you slowly lose interest in them.

And call me a hopless romantic but I think when you love someone it never really goes away, no matter how hard you tell yourself its over.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I do not believe for one second that homosexuality if something your born with.....



As I said, to adequately address my post, one would need to address the research behind the assertion. As I said, science could care less about your belief. The bigger issue is that your belief is incongruent with the research: a testimony to your refusal to update your position in light of evidence. Now, if anyone here would like to address the research behind the APA's support, I will be more than happy to address. If you can only cite personal belief, you are wasting our time.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

If I would have let myself develop into liking a guy (which before anyone says anything of course never happened) than I wold have made a choice to be Gay.


Again jere, you are not describing a "choice" you are describing "development".

Was there some internal pressure you were struggling with that you had to overcome in order to not "let yourself develop into liking a guy"?

A choice involves picking between two or more alternatives. Your statements indicate that there was only one way for you to have "developed" and I agree. Why do you think you made a "choice"?

You state that you have gay friends. Have you asked them if they made a choice to be gay? If not, i suggest you ask them, and if they say they did make a choice, please get the details and let me know how, and why, they "chose" to be gay.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
But jere, reading your statement above, I thought Christians believed we are born with sin.

neuro, It is obvious that for some reason of your own you are trying hard to justify homosexuality.

I do. It's called research. Research supports the notion of sexual orientation as part of biodiversity.

Originally posted by neuromed07
As I said, to adequately address my post, one would need to address the research behind the assertion. As I said, science could care less about your belief. The bigger issue is that your belief is incongruent with the research: a testimony to your refusal to update your position in light of evidence. Now, if anyone here would like to address the research behind the APA's support, I will be more than happy to address. If you can only cite personal belief, you are wasting our time.

I doubt you will find much discussion about the merits of the scientific research, but plenty of "opinions" on why people are gay. Sadly, when it comes to this issue, a lot of people are more than willing to ignore good science in favor of their personal beliefs.

BTW, welcome back neuromed :flowers:

As I originally said, "where is the critique of the science?" And, I see none. The point of this thread was to:

1. Say the APA's support grew out of prior and abundant research.

2. To disagree with the APA is to call into question the research

3. So, call it into question.

Again, I have seen numerous "I believe" and "I do not believe," but again, where is the critique of the science. It is only so long someone can deny the existence of atoms--in the face of evidence--before they are dogmatic and not at all logical.

Sexual orientation, without question, is not under conscious control. We have numerous studies, especially from the 40s-early 60s, where homosexuals were forced to undergo treatment: things like ECT, induced vomiting during same-sex viewing of photos. And the results were null. None of these men remained "heterosexual" for more than a few years, meaning their behavior. And none of them indicated any change to their internal predisposition. Finally, the Hooker study found no significant differenced between homosexuals and heterosexuals when variables were controlled for. Horstman and others found very similiar responses on the MMPI, an inventory for personality. The conclusion: homosexuality is not associated with pathology; it is not a disorder. Later, Bell, Hammersmith and Weinberg completed the largest study to date into the origins of sexual orientation. Their retrospective analysis indicated sexual orientation was

1. not under conscious control
2. without association to any family or social variable
3. was present before sexual activity
4. continued into adulthood from childhood

These are the pieces of evidence as we know them. More current research has now indicated that same-sex couples can be parents as well as opposite-sex parents. The dearth of the evidence shows that children do well in their care. In light of all this the APA merely said: why discriminate? And I think it is a valid question. Now, if anyone wants to debate their position, first let's make clear the evidence. Either take it on and debate with me about its standing, or admit it is true and then let's talk about the APA's position.

Originally posted by Vilepagan

BTW, welcome back neuromed :flowers:

Thanks, Vile. Med. school got a lil' hectic for a while. I should be able to post more often now; I hope. Nice to see ya.

I have a half-brother that is gay. He is younger but we were raised in the same family. We have the same mother.
We also have a third,younger, brother.
I and the youngest brother are not gay. The middle brother is.
I have discussed this with him. His statement to me was that he always felt this way. When the rest of us were looking at girls he was looking at the guys. He also said that in no way did anyone influence him to be gay when he was young by introducing a gay experience to him. It just always seemed natural to him he said.
There-fore I must conclude from conversations with my brother that you can be born with sexual preferance.

I called my friend Jamie and asked him about this question of being born gay and what made him gay.

He said that he growing up in elementry school he tried to go out with girls, because he knew he should, but he just didnt feel comfortable with them.

He went on to say in middle school he met another homosexual from Lexington, and they hit it off as he said.

He just told me that he felt more comfortable and himself around guys than he did girls.

When I asked so did you chose to be Gay...his reply was.

Yeah, I guess I did.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
He said that he growing up in elementry school he tried to go out with girls, because he knew he should, but he just didnt feel comfortable with them.

He just told me that he felt more comfortable and himself around guys than he did girls.



I don't know of anyone who can choose how they feel, Jere. Your friend sounds like he couldn't help being gay - I'd say he chose to accept it.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I called my friend Jamie and asked him about this question of being born gay and what made him gay.

He said that he growing up in elementry school he tried to go out with girls, because he knew he should, but he just didnt feel comfortable with them.

He went on to say in middle school he met another homosexual from Lexington, and they hit it off as he said.

He just told me that he felt more comfortable and himself around guys than he did girls.

When I asked so did you chose to be Gay...his reply was.

Yeah, I guess I did.
There is a difference between feeling attraction towards a certain sex and actually acting on that attraction. One cannot help who one is attracted to. One can help who one has sex with. In other words, one can choose to be a practicing homosexual but cannot choose who one is attracted to. Just as you have chosen to be a more-or-less practicing heterosexual, Jere, by having a girlfriend.

Furthermore, gays can choose to be practicing heterosexuals and supress their natural desires, which psychologists agree is unhealthy. In fact, heterosexuals can choose to be practicing homosexuals, though why anyone would do that is beyond me.

Ok lets take that a little inch further.

Ok, say Joe, is born gay. But he knows its not right, so choses to live a heterosexual lifestyle....while Bob, is born gay and well stays gay.

If this could be the case, and Bob would be committing the sin between the two, then I could buy the theory of being born Gay....because as you pointed out, you do not have to practice homosexuality.

Nice post rather or not it was agaisnt me, lol.

are there any structural differences in the brain between gay and straight? Is it biological?

I agree with the APA. The same chemicals, such as estrogen, testosterone, ACh, and many endorphins and some steroids, that cause us to desire, say...chocolate, are the same ones that that stimulate sexual drive. I think it has been since 1972 the APA has held the idea that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but in fact a biological difference. They just didn't have the technology to test the differences, mainly on the genetic level, of individuals. We all are different...people have different tastes, desires, some races are more susceptible to different diseases or are more/less able to deal with their outside environment. That's biological, not mental.

Here is the link to the APA fact sheet explaining their stance on homosexuality and some of the research that has gone on in the past.

APA Fact Sheet (http://www.psych.org/public_info/gaylesbianbisexualissues22701.pdf)

I also agree with the studies. The reason I ask about biological differences being noted, is because awhile back I saw a european study, that had been studying cadavers of homosexuaL people, in comparison to straight. Mainly they were looking at the brain, and I cannot remember which section, but there were noted differences. I think it may have been the hypothalamus, I wonder if anyone knows of this. They also were mentioning the difficulty of the study, because it had been hard to obtain specimens. (They didn't have very many dead gay people to study)

Creet:

Yes. Simon Levay and other researchers attempted to locate structural differences in the Anterior Hypothalamus, specifically in the interstitial nuclei termed: INAH 1-3. He reported size differences, but we have to admit his study is flawed. First, he presumed the sexual orientation; it was never reported. Second, all the subjects died secondary to HIV infection. So, we can't even be sure he was really comparing one sexual orientation to another. Also, there are problems with the HIV. HIV does cross the blood brain barrier and does induce changes in the brain, eventually leading to psychosis. Not to mention that antiretroviral medications do influence the brain, as well. So, there are too many confounding variables that could have influenced the differences, but he did report them. Also, you should know no one has been able to replicate his results. There is also the problem with the nuclei. Are they really structures, or not? And, if they are, are they even associated with sexual orientation. The hypothalamus does many things but implicating it in sexual orientation is another issue. This is one study I would reject. It would be great to demonstrate structural differences, but it just hasn't been done yet. Hope this helps.

ah, I see thank you.

So in order to do a clean study, there will be a need for non HIv healthy gay people to donate their bodies to science?

Somewhere in the genetic make up of humans there must be a mix of gender. Why else would guys have tits. Maybe in some people the full seperation of gender is not complete.

hehe,...........Dan said "tits"

Originally posted by neuromed07
Yes, for all of you who have been waiting; I'm back. Anyway, the APA, as with all other organizations of scientists, only provides information backed up with empitical research. The essence of the APA's message is that the dearth of psychological data show a gay sexual orientation to be not amenable to change, inherent and not associated with any significant pathology--indeed, as with any sexual orientation. I realize moving from this research into a proclamation supporting marriage is a political move, with significant social ramifications. Nonetheless, the point seems to be this: if the research shows some humans will have a minority sexual orientaion not associated with pathology, it is reasonable to assume they will couple. Why not provide legal sanction? Thus far, I have seen a lot of responses from Bible citations to personal "I do not believe" statements. Yet, the fact remains. The dearth of research shows sexual orientation to be without conscious selection, immutable and not associated with pathology. From the Bell, Hammersmith and Weinberg studies, to recent studies with Heatherly, Savin-Williams and others. And yes, I will discuss any of those. So, the point is simple. The research supports these ideas, so what is with the discrimination. And, let me just say, to address my post, you will need to tackle the dearth of research. Science could care less about your opinion. We don't take votes in science. We investigate. And the investigation has led to the conclusion that gay--shock, shock--are humans, without associated pathology. Why treat them as such?

I think most (not "dearth"?) research will show criminal conduct to be without "conscious selection" as well. Assuming that is so, should there be "legal sanction" for criminals too?

Or in other words, do you think any behavior should be sanctioned if most "scientific" research shows that there is lack of conscious selection?

There must not be absolutes concerning this matter. IMO a majority of homosexuals are born that way, but there must be a small percentage of homosexuals who have gone through developmental changes to become that way. An interesting example would be the industry of urban fashion and cosmetics in the leading artistic cities around the world--gays are (unfairly) usually given higher regards in such professons and a straight person who wishes to succeed might feel under the pressure to absorb gayness. Even more intersting would be the idea that a straight person who lives in such a place grows to become fund of gay ways and decided to become bisexual. This may be more common than you think. Esp. among models, trend-setters, dancers, stylists...etc.

Yes, we need sickness controlled for, so no HIV in the study.