Homosexuality is psychological and not biological.
Debate Rounds (5)
I would regard homosexuality as psychological and emotional disorder, with the actions of homosexuals merely a symptom of that disorder. I do not believe there is any evolutionary basis to homosexuality in mankind, since the anus did not evolve to accommodate the penis.
When one drinks or smokes they get ill for their organs have not evolved to deal with the toxins. Homosexual sex is by far and away the most high risk type of sex for obvious reasons. On average homosexuals live 20yrs less than heterosexuals. In London it is estimated the average age a homosexual lives to is around 40. Only 2% live to the age of 65.
Just as the heavy drinker or heavy smoker may grow sick and die younger due to practices that his body has not naturally evolved to adapt to, so too does the sexually active homosexual, whose body has not evolved to have sex of that type.
Despite the gloss painted by the recent media fawning over homosexuals (as if to merely be one is now the height of morality), the reality of a homosexual lifestyle is really quite different. Not only do they have a much shorter life span, they are seven times more likely to have a recreational drug habit, and it is estimated that in the US around one in 5 homosexuals are HIV positive and that many are not even aware of it. It is also a little known fact that almost all homosexual marriages are in fact "open" marriages. There may be rare exceptions that are not, but on average, homosexual marriages end up as open marriages, since monogamy and the typical homosexual lifestyle are not consistent with one another.
The greater predisposition toward self- medicating, high risk taking, dangerous behaviours, greater predisposition to self- harm and suicide are all more prevalent among homosexuals not, as the media may have you believe, down to random "hate", but simply that all of those things are entirely consistent with someone that has a mental health issue.
Unless one felt a prejudice toward those with psychological conditions then there should be no injury to suggest that homosexual is but another psychological condition with symptoms that happen to manifest sexually.
This does not mean that you can "cure" it, you most likely cannot. But then there aren"t many psychological conditions that can be cured. Only managed. For someone with the homosexual psychological condition, the best thing he could do to ensure a longer and healthier life would to abstain and not succumb to his symptoms. Just as it would be highly damaging to the schizophrenic to take LSD, for someone with the homosexual psychology to act upon his urges will also be highly damaging.
It is true that homosexuality was indeed taken of the list of disorders some time ago now. However, that is not proof that it"s not a disorder, merely proof that a narrow vote served to remove it from a list, and under pressure from homosexual lobbyists.
If we accept that homosexuality is a state of mind, a pathology, we must ask what the pathogen might be. In my research it appears that an all too high number of homosexuals were molested by men from the ages of 2-15.
Not all, but certainly a staggering enough and too many to be overlooked. Many homosexuals will privately admit to some early childhood sexual trauma, and some will even concede that this shaped their own psyche.
Here are my sources;
"There is no firm biological basis to homosexuality"
Incorrect (1 - 4).
"I do not believe there is any evolutionary basis to homosexuality in mankind,"
An evolutionary basis or incentive for homosexuality to exist is not necessary for it to be (at least partly) biological in nature.
"On average homosexuals live 20yrs less than heterosexuals."
This is correct, though by itself not indicative of anything other than homosexuals having shorter average lifespans. There is research that suggests this is due to a myriad of social factors - not homosexuality itself (5).
"Just as the heavy drinker or heavy smoker may grow sick and die younger due to practices that his body has not naturally evolved to adapt to, so too does the sexually active homosexual, whose body has not evolved to have sex of that type."
Bad analogy. There is a direct link between smoking/drinking and fatal conditions . Pro has provided no such evidence for a direct link between homosexual activity and higher death rates.
"It is also a little known fact that almost all homosexual marriages are in fact "open" marriages."
Another distortion. Pro's link in support of this only found that to be the case in "about half of all couples" - not "almost all".
"The greater predisposition toward self- medicating, high risk taking, dangerous behaviours, greater predisposition to self- harm and suicide are all more prevalent among homosexuals not, as the media may have you believe, down to random "hate", but simply that all of those things are entirely consistent with someone that has a mental health issue."
The validity (or lack thereof) of this argument is of absolutely no relevance to the overall debate. Pro's position is that homosexuality is only a psychological condition, and not biological - not wether or not it is/should be classified as a mental disorder/health issue.
Absolutely no data has been provided to support Pro's assertion that these behaviors are caused by homosexuality itself. It's also worth mentioning that a population having higher rates of those particular behaviors isn't necessarily indicative of a mental disorder - this is commonly found amongst several populations which are definitely not collective sufferers of mental disorders (black Americans, for example).
Citations and sources:
"An evolutionary basis or incentive for homosexuality to exist is not necessary for it to be (at least partly) biological in nature."
While that may be technically true, it does not prove or show that homosexuality is biological or genetically driven. And that's the crux of the debate here, is there any empirical evidence that homosexuality is biological or genetic in origin? Is there a 'gay gene'? Can the difference between a homosexual and heterosexual be measured by differences in the brain? I don't believe that there is any compelling evidence to support that it's rooted in the genetic or the biological. If there is such evidence I have yet to see it.
"There is a direct link between smoking/drinking and fatal conditions . Pro has provided no such evidence for a direct link between homosexual activity and higher death rates..."
But that is simply not true. You've already conceded that on average the homosexual man will live at least 20years less than the heterosexual man. If it's not his homosexual activity that's the cause of this shortened life span, then what is it? Let's look at this way. If a man with homosexual thoughts never followed through on them and abstained, I would suggest very strongly that this man's lifespan would not be reduced in the way that a man with an active homosexual lifestyle will be. It's following through on the thoughts that ultimately causes the reduced average life span. Not merely the sexual activity but the far greater predisposition for drug use, the fact that one in five homosexuals who are active have HIV(and many not aware), the greater predisposition to unprotected sex, the greater predisposition to promiscuity.
Another distortion. Pro's link in support of this only found that to be the case in "about half of all couples" - not "almost all".
It's important to note here that this is not 'another distortion' since there have been no distortions so far. At least half of homosexuals that are married concede that their marriage is entirely 'open'. That's a pretty damning % in itself, and I would suggest to you that the same % would not be reflected in heterosexual marriage. While there may be 'open' marriages among heterosexuals, I would challenge you to show us any conclusive evidence that demonstrates that the ratio is even close to half. Moreover, it is not exactly a leap of faith to propose that if around 50% of married homosexuals conceded that their marriage is open that there will be others among those asked who would not admit it. Even at 50% it demonstrates what I stated - that the homosexual life does not lend itself well to a committed relationship between two people .
"The validity (or lack thereof) of this argument is of absolutely no relevance to the overall debate. Pro's position is that homosexuality is only a psychological condition, and not biological - not whether or not it is/should be classified as a mental disorder/health issue.
Absolutely no data has been provided to support Pro's assertion that these behaviours are caused by homosexuality itself. It's also worth mentioning that a population having higher rates of those particular behaviours isn't necessarily indicative of a mental disorder - this is commonly found amongst several populations which are definitely not collective sufferers of mental disorders (black Americans, for example)."
The first paragraph of what you've written is a clear contradiction in terms. You are correct in that my position is that homosexuality is rooted in the psychological and not the biological or genetic. Thus far you have not proven my case to be wrong. You have also not shown that homosexuality is biologically driven. It would follow that if its a psychological condition then it's by very definition it would be a mental disorder/health issue.
When the psychological condition of homosexuality is actualised and followed through on, it leads one into a World of higher risk of drug dependency and sexual behaviours that clearly and demonstrably are a health issue(physically), caused by them following through on their psychological issue(homosexual ideation).
"While that may be technically true, it does not prove or show that homosexuality is biological or genetically driven."
Purpose of the quoted statement wasn't an attempt to definitely prove that homosexuality has a genetic basis - merely that the lack of an apparent evolutionary incentive for it does not automatically mean there cannot be any genetic basis at all.
"is there any empirical evidence that homosexuality is biological or genetic in origin?"
Entirely? No. In (significant) part? Most definitely (1 - 9).
"Can the difference between a homosexual and heterosexual be measured by differences in the brain?"
Yes, it can (10 - 12)
"That's a pretty damning % in itself, and I would suggest to you that the same % would not be reflected in heterosexual marriage."
Most likely - that's still of no support to your original statement. "About half" is not nearly the same thing as "almost all".
"While there may be 'open' marriages among heterosexuals, I would challenge you to show us any conclusive evidence that demonstrates that the ratio is even close to half. "
Why? I never stated it was (and would not expect it to be).
"Thus far you have not proven my case to be wrong."
I provided several studies in my first reply (and multiple more in this one), which lent credence to a (partly) biological view of homosexuality. Pro's response did not contain so much as an acknowledgement.
We only have 3 days to formulate something close to digestible replies, and the readers only a relatively short time to digest information therein. It would therefore be of great use to everyone if you could perhaps lift what sections you deem absolutely conclusive from your sources and quote them inside the main body of your text. You may also then provide links as well of course.
We will commonly hear homosexuals talk about being 'born gay'. Because this is repeated and unchallenged in the media, general society takes on the idea as scientific fact - when it's anything but so.
I would even go as far as to say that people who believe others are 'born gay' are essentially like an informal faith based cult. A faith entirely lacking in rationality or empirical scientific evidence. It would be perfectly possible for geneticists to study a DNA sample from an African, Asian or European man and determine from that sample which was which. This is very easy for them to do for there are clear and self evident genetic markers and differences.
They can go further still. They can break it down, so that your results might be that you are 90% European, 5% African and 5% Jewish. This is so easy and commonplace now that anyone can do it online and for a small fee. But can could scientists take the gene samples of babies and determine which were hetro and which would be homosexual? Could they do it with a large participation sample and repeat the results time and again as per the scientific process? No they cannot and they have not. The reason why they cannot and never will is that no one is born gay, and scientists would not be able to determine by a compare and contrast of samples from new born babies.
It should be clear by now that whatever homosexuality is rooted in that thing is not biological or genetic. But since it obviously exists and a real thing we are left with the question - what is it mainly rooted in(or even exclusively so)? The answer is patently in the psychological.
From an evolutionary perspective you might wonder why a male 'born gay' would also produce semen? Semen is for procreation and a man cannot impregnate another man. You'd have to wonder why the female 'born gay' would have eggs. A women cannot impregnate another women. This would further indicate to me that no baby is born 'genetically gay'.
The parallels between many of those with the pathology of homosexuality can be juxtaposed with recognised psychological conditions and you will see some startling similarities. The much higher instances of drug use (self medicating even), the high risk taking behaviours, casual disregard for consequence, greater instances of self harm and suicidal ideation, sexual promiscuity but difficulty in sustaining relationships, commonly highly sensitive to any criticism while being fiercely critical of others.
There is a reason why there would be some many parallels - the psyche of homosexuality is in of itself a psychological state of mind, most likely born from one or more triggers in their key development years. In the video I provided in my OP a range of homosexuals were asked frankly about their first sexual encounter of any kind. Around 90% or more answered that there was either some molestation at the hands of another male or at the very least an early sexualisation owing to exposure to sex.
This does not mean that being molested is the trigger in all. But I think it is fair to say that if a boy aged between 2-12 is molested(maybe repeatedly) by men, that the child is going to grow up with an altered and damaged sexual psyche.
Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist who founded the "direct action" group OutRage! that specialises in media stunts wrote on Spiked Online that he agrees with the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a "gay gene
Tatchell wrote, "Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that�s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things."
Tatchell even went as far as to acknowledge the existence of some who have changed their "sexual orientation." "If heterosexually and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined� how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't."
Sexuality, he wrote, is "far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow."
"Examples of sexual flexibility� don�t square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination."
Richard B. Gartner, PhD, Training and Supervising Analyst, Faculty and Founding Director of the Sexual Abuse Program at the William Alanson White Institute, wrote in his Jan. 30, 2011 article "Talking about Sexually Abused Boys, and the Men They Become," available at www.psychologytoday.com:
"Finally, when the abuser is male (and even sometimes when she is female), many boys - whether straight or gay - develop fears and concerns about sexual orientation. Conventional wisdom says sexual abuse turns boys gay, although there's no persuasive evidence that premature sexual activity fundamentally changes sexual orientation. Nevertheless, a heterosexual boy is likely to doubt himself, wondering why he was chosen by a man for sex. A homosexual boy may feel rushed into considering himself gay, or may hate his homosexuality because he believes it was caused by his abuse."
Helen W. Wilson, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, and Cathy Spatz Widom, PhD, Professor of Criminal Justice and Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at The City University of New York (CUNY), wrote the following information in their Jan. 7, 2009 article published by Archives of Sexual Behaviour, "Does Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, or Neglect in Childhood Increase the Likelihood of Same-sex Sexual Relationships and Cohabitation? A Prospective 30-year Follow-up":
"Findings from this investigation provide tentative support for a relationship between childhood sexual abuse and same sex sexual relationships, but this relationship appeared only for men. That is, men with histories of childhood sexual abuse were more likely than men in a control group to report same sex sexual partnerships... "
David W. Purcell, JD, PhD, Deputy Director for Behavioural and Social Science, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, et al. State in their article "Childhood Sexual Abuse Experienced by Gay and Bisexual Men: Understanding the Disparities and Interventions to Help Eliminate Them," published in the 2008 book Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States:
"In sum, regardless of the rigor of the sample selection, when comparing MSM [men who have sex with men] samples to general male population samples, and when comparing MSM and heterosexual men within one sample, MSM consistently report more CSA [childhood sexual abuse] overall and more CSA with males than heterosexual men do; and no differences are observed for reported abuse by females� These studies bolster our conclusion that a disparity exists between gay/bisexual men and heterosexual men when it comes to CSA by males
"In the interests of clarity and ease, both for myself and the readers, perhaps when you make an affirmative claim you might wish to quote what you feel is the key portion from a website or study, rather than merely several links to various."
Sue, should be no problem.
"But can could scientists take the gene samples of babies and determine which were hetro and which would be homosexual?"
With a high degree of accuracy, yes.
"An algorithm using epigenetic information from just nine regions of the human genome can predict the sexual orientation of males with up to 70 percent accuracy" (1)
The accuracy rate isn't near absolute, because homosexuality isn't entirely genetic in origin. That, and the fact that homosexuality can be predicted from genes (particularly with such a high degree of accuracy) shows that they play some role in its cause.
"It should be clear by now that whatever homosexuality is rooted in that thing is not biological or genetic."
In addition to the prior evidence (which should be more than sufficient), there is even more data that supports a partly genetic view of homosexuality.
For example, one study found X-chromosomal linkages between homosexual men:
"DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested." (2)
"From an evolutionary perspective you might wonder why a male 'born gay' would also produce semen?"
There is an evolutionary precedent for why male homosexuality exists.
One study found that female relatives of homosexual men tend to be more fertile than average.
"We observed that the maternal aunts and grandmothers of homosexual probands were significantly more fecund compared with the maternal aunts and maternal grandmothers of the heterosexual probands." (3)
This suggests that the genes influencing male homosexuality have a different effect on women (increased fecundity), to the degree that the effect of increased female fertility offset the selective pressure against male homosexuality.
"This would further indicate to me that no baby is born 'genetically gay'."
As my sources show above, it's unlikely one's sexuality is determined entirely by genetics. That said, it'd be silly to rule out the demonstrated impact genetics have on the issues entirely.
"The much higher instances of drug use (self medicating even), the high risk taking behaviours, casual disregard for consequence, greater instances of self harm and suicidal ideation, sexual promiscuity but difficulty in sustaining relationships, commonly highly sensitive to any criticism while being fiercely critical of others."
These issues being more common in homosexuals than heterosexuals is likely owed to other factors, not homosexuality itself.
At least some of these issues (the abnormal suicide rate for example) are definitively known to be largely caused by social factors:
"Several nonrandom studies have found an association between parental rejection because of sexual orientation and higher risk of suicide attempts among LGB youth (D'Augelli, Grossman, Salter, et al., 2005; D'Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 2001; Remafedi et al., 1991; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009). One study of White and Latino LGB young adults aged 21–25 (Ryan et al., 2009) found that those who experienced frequent rejecting behaviors by their parents or caregivers during adolescence were over eight times more likely to report making a suicide attempt than those with accepting parents." (4)
If there's any evidence that these are directly caused by homosexuality itself, directly, then it has not been presented. Furthermore, evidence that the final parallel is more common in homosexuals than in heterosexuals ("commonly highly sensitive to any criticism while being fiercely critical of others") remains to be provided by Pro.
They got established and revered practitioners to write chapters which explore these important issues. The following regarding the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 was written as a matter of verifiable fact:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition.
A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalising homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted.
Psychiatrys House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking for the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote than by scientific evidence (page 9)
Against a backdrop where homosexuals were gaining public sympathy and growing louder in voice and bolder in pressure lobbying, Destructive Trends in mental health reports:
Bayer describes one instance in 1972 in which the New York Gay Activist Alliance organised a protest during a conference of the Association for the Advancement of Behaviour Therapy. The protesters called for an end to the use of aversion techniques to change the natural sexual orientation of human beings. The activists gained access to one of the conference rooms during a presentation in front of a large audience that included Dr Robert Spitzer, then a member of the APAs Nomenclature Committee. This was the first time Spitzer had been confronted with homosexuals demanding changes in psychiatry"s conceptualization of homosexuality. Apparently, impressed by the passion and arguments of the protesters, Spitzer arranged for a formal presentation of their views to the Nomenclature Committee.
Spitzer was to become the one to spearhead APAs 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. (Yet interestingly, he undo his hero status among the homosexual community when some 28 years later, he argued in a paper that it is possible for highly motivated individuals to successfully change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.)
Here are the chain of events:
1973 Board of Trustees of The American Psychiatric Association (APA) approves the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM-II and substitutes a diagnosis of sexual orientation disturbance. Intense discussion and debate followed.
On Dec 15 1973, the Board of Trustees of the APA voted to delete homosexuality altogether from the DSM. Opposition from several psychiatrists immediately followed. A referendum on the Boards decision was called.
1974 " the entire membership of the APA was polled for their support or rejection of the Board"s decision.
Of the 10,000 voting members, nearly 40% opposed the Board"s decision to normalise homosexuality.
The decision was hardly unanimous. (Controversially, a survey conducted in 1979 asked 10,000 psychiatrists if they felt homosexuality "usually represented a pathological adaptation." 69% of respondents said "yes," and �60% said homosexual men were less capable of "mature, loving relationships" than heterosexual men.)
The author of Destructive Trends in mental health was right to conclude:
Diagnosis today in psychology and psychiatry is cluttered with politically correct verbiage, which seemingly has taken precedence over sound professional experience and scientific validation.
Explaining how it is possible that intellectual openness, scientific inquiry, aspiration towards diversity, and freedom from political pressure that once flourished in the American Psychological Association has been eclipsed by an ultra-liberal agenda, the author describes:
The field of psychology is severely fractionated into almost sixty formal divisions and fifty state associations, which compete for seats on the organizations governing body, the Council of Representatives. Originally intended as units organised around special interests and concerns within psychology, they have become power bases and self-interest groups that fiercely vie against one another for the limited number of seats on the Council of Representatives in order to influence the course and commitments of the APA.
Here ^^ we can see in greater detail, along with names and dates, that the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was not one born out of objective professional judgment, but instead clearly born from well organised political pressure.
When one must use such covert and subversive measures to alter the very direction of something, then it becomes clear that objective reality is disregarded in favour of a false reality created from the pressure and intimidation.
The only question here ^^ is why would these lobbyists have conspired and worked to have it removed? Clearly because they felt there was a benefit - to them. Not to truth or objective reality, but a benefit to them - or at least a perceived one.
I guess they must have felt that until they had taken it off the DSM list then they, as a group, might find that their condition held them back from doing certain things.
Even today any given employer might be able to reject someone on the basis they have paranoid schizophrenia for example. I doubt a paranoid schizophrenic would be allowed into the army. This is not because the army is inherently anti schizophrenic, but that on balance it would be reasoned that he may be a risk to himself and to others. There may be other jobs he could do, but there are a lot where it would fairly be something to consider for everyone's sake.
While homosexuality is not schizophrenia it is rooted in the psychological and developmental, and so while it was deemed as a psychological condition, this was taken into consideration in certain occupations.
Therefore, as far the homosexual lobby and their backers were concerned, to get off the DSM was a must. But not a must for truth and accuracy, a must for their perceived advancement.
I contest that their motives were selfish and grounded in self advancement rather than being grounded in objective reality.
I contest that the scientific and psychiatric community did itself a great disservice when they permitted themselves to be bullied and cajoled by a well organised and well- funded lobby.
In practice, this means that any well organised and well-funded lobby could, were they dogged enough, get science to alter or distort some other reality. Or historians. It's alarming to think how our given reality can be malleable when you have well- oiled and well connected lobbyists using their money and tactics to advance their own agenda, whatsoever that may be. But as alarming as it is it's also a modern reality.
Powerful and rich lobbyists change the political course of the USA. Why would they not be able to do the same in certain fields of science, and psychiatry and psychology would lend themselves well to it.
There are two realities to the homosexual lifestyle. There's the reality manufactured by popular media, in which the homosexual is nearly always the good guy, the cool guy just that bit smarter and more erudite than the straight guys. Everything is portrayed as good and positive, I call it 'Will and Grace' syndrome.
Albeit there are exceptions to all things, generally speaking and with only a relatively small amount of personal research, a true picture emerges that's often times one of drug misuse, promiscuity, high rates of HIV, low rates of contraception use (high risk behaviours), many empty sexual encounters with near or total strangers and a much shorter life span for acting upon their psychologically rooted symptoms.
When organised homosexual lobbyists got it taken off the DSM, true they perhaps made some superficial or material gains. That's undeniable. But at what cost?
Without recognition on the DSM it would then follow that even if a homosexual himself dearly wanted to address his homosexuality, then the mechanism would not be in place to assist him. Indeed, his peers would likely ostracise him for being a homosexual man that perhaps didn't want to be. The irony of 'tolerance' I guess. There are homosexual militants that would likely attack any clinic that offered any kind of therapy and/or non- invasive assistance to a homosexual that either wished to be hetero or simply abstain.
As a result of being taken off the DSM many of the symptoms of homosexuality inevitably grew worse. HIV became rampant among them, they began killing themselves at a higher rate than ever, they began drug taking to a higher rate than ever. This is no surprise.
If you took bi polar disorder off the DSM and failed to give any care to those that had it (since it would no longer be a condition), then it would also likely lead to greater levels of people with that condition getting worse than they presently are, esp if a media encouraged them to exasperate their condition by encouraging people with it to just act on a whim.
To begin with, I would like to point out that if homosexuality were to be classified as a mental disorder, it would have no effect on wether it has a biological basis or not. I will also refrain from commenting on wether or not it should be classified as a mental disorder, as I don't know nearly enough as to what the reasoning for having it there in the first place was.
While Pro does make a compelling case against the reasons that caused homosexuality to be taken off the DSM, this does not do much to provide significant (if any) support to his standpoint in the debate. Merely being listed in the DSM does not make a condition totally psychological - many disorders listed there (such as ADHD, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia) are partly heritable.
Unfortunately for Pro, the near-entirety of his argument in this round consisted of a criticism of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. Pro also did nothing to criticize the prior evidence that homosexuality has a significantly biological foundation. If the data presented is correct, then Pro's initial statement (that "there is no firm biological basis to homosexuality") is patently incorrect.
As I have demonstrated repeatedly in the previous rounds, genetics do play a significant role in determining sexual orientation. And while that may not be the only relevant factor, to totally deny their influence, and label it as exclusively psychological would be a dismissal of the vast amounts of data that indicate this is not the case.
The undercover video that I provided did precisely that " it allowed homosexuals to speak, in their own words, and in an environment in which they did not feel the need to be guarded. If you have not already done so I would urge you to do so. It is worth giving the link again;
Simple questions were asked to a good cross section of homosexuals in a non- confrontational manner. This could easily be any sampling of homosexuals at any gay bar on a weekend. There is no reason to believe those homosexuals are unique. I would strongly suggest that it"s more plausible that this would be representative of the reactions and responses you would get if this were done in any gay bar or club in the country, and that the homosexuals in that video are not special cases at all.
I watched it for research purposes, and by the end it was clear to me that the vast majority of the homosexuals in it had been victims of child molestation and rape between the ages of 2-12. Almost every one of them recounted an early sexual experience with an adult male. Many when asked said that until the violation they had never considered themselves to have an attraction toward men. They clearly state that the psyche developed only after the abuse.
Naturally, as is the case with those who have been abused, some were confused as to the very fact that yes, they HAD been abused. Some victims of abuse develop a strange defence of the abuser.
Most of the respondents spoke clearly and candidly. Even though those first experiences happened to them a long time ago, you can sense v easily that they recount them with bitterness and anger.
If there was true merit to being "born gay" then why would it take the molestation and rape of a male child to act as a catalyst much of the time?
Are we to believe that this early molestation simply had zero effect at all on the overall and sexual psyche of the child?
That it would not indeed shape his outlook on relations, love and sex?
Are we to dismiss the homosexuals themselves who bravely recount their experiences and who state they did not harbour sexual attraction to males until they violations?
While it may be difficult to provide precise and all- inclusive data as to precisely what % of homosexuals were molested by an older male as a child (it"s not something many might want to admit), I would suggest any figures we do find would be on the conservative side.
Notwithstanding, in the words of homosexuals themselves and this data, it should be absolutely clear that a significant % of homosexuals experienced abuse by an older male when a child.
"Dr"s. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse analysed data from what is probably the best survey of sexual behaviour in America. They write, "Experience of sexual abuse as a child, in other words, more than tripled the likelihood of later reporting homosexual orientation."
They continue, "Other studies have reported the same trend." (4) In 1995, Dr. Thomas Schmidt, author of Straight and Narrow, cited two different studies about high rates of sexual abuse in homosexual and bisexual men. He writes:
"Nevertheless, it is disturbing to find that although under 4 percent of boys are molested by men, a recent major study found that the rate of childhood molestation by men among homosexual or bisexual men was nearly ten times that (35 percent). It is also notable that 75 percent of homosexual men report their first homosexual experience prior to the age of sixteen, as compared to 22 percent of heterosexual men reporting their first heterosexual experience""
Dr. Dean Byrd has a Ph.D. in psychology, and post doctorate degrees in Child and Family Psychology and Behavioural Medicine.
Now in his fourth decade of teaching, research and practice, he has provided psychological care for at least 400 men who have been distressed by their unwanted homosexual attractions. He concurs that childhood sexual abuse is a significant issue for many men with same-sex attractions, and points to even more studies that demonstrate this connection. He also notes that the homosexually-identified men often report earlier ages for their first sexual experience, but often don"t consider this abuse:
There is indeed a clear disparity between homosexual men and heterosexual men and child sexual abuse. Using a non-clinical population of 465, Tomeo et al. found that 46 pe cent of the gay men reported being sexually abused as children compared to 7 percent of the matched heterosexual men.
What"s intriguing is that 68 percent of the homosexual men did not identify as homosexual until after the abuse.
Earlier research by Johnson and Shrier concluded that boys who had been sexually abused are 7 times more likely to identify as homosexual or bisexual than their heterosexual counterparts. Even more intriguing is that Friedman noted that the boys who later identified as heterosexual had a mean average of 15.7 as the time of their first sexual experience. For the boy who later identified as homosexual, the mean average was 12.7.
One older homosexual in the undercover video admitted his youngest victim was 12yrs of age, before going on to recount how he was sexually abused by men at around that age and how from that point on, he was left both angry and with a whole new sexual identity.
Perhaps when you take all of this into consideration, it is hardly surprising at all why the powerful and well- funded homosexual lobbyists should strive to have homosexuality removed from the DSM.
After all, if it were still listed on the DSM today then the research could only finally arrive at the conclusion that in a disproportionate number of cases, abuse by an older male when they were a child was the pathogen that created the pathology. Such conclusions and routes would not suit politically connected and influential homosexuals.
We have heard the words of leading British "gay activist" Peter Tatchell, who is a homosexual of course, and has been around homosexuals his whole life.
Here are his words again;
"Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that is all. Predisposition and determination are two different things. If heterosexually and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't."
And on the subject of Peter Tatchell, here is what he wrote to the Guardian in 1997. This wasn"t stated off the cuff. These were his own considered words that he took time to read before sending;
In a 1997 letter to The Guardian, Tatchell defended an academic book about "boy-love," calling the work "courageous," before writing:
"The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends " gay and straight, male and female " had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful"
These words would, I am sure, put any rational person off from allowing their son to spend any time alone with such a person. As with abusers, you can see the language of justification in what he writes, and how he even goes as far as to claim the victims like it. Children aged NINE.
Those are his thoughts and words, not my take on them. Doesn"t it dovetail so very well with the accounts and data of homosexuals being subjected to molestation by adult males as I"ve covered in depth?
Isn"t it telling that rather than distance themselves and condemn Tatchell for those words, that to this day he is perceived by them as a hero by LGBT? They even give him the nick name of Saint Peter Tatchell.
These are adult homosexuals who clearly see nothing wrong in sexual contact with male children and in their own words.
Is male to male molestation the psychological catalyst in all cases? Most likely not. But I would be confident in saying that child abuse by an older male is the catalyst in many cases and perhaps even more than we openly know about.
This cannot be denied nor can it be dismissed.
What then of those who went through their childhood years with zero molestation or sexual contact with an older male? How do we explain that?
I"d suggest that in those cases other triggers have been involved. Triggers that were perhaps absent of the molestation.
This would be consistent with other psychological conditions, such as borderline personality disorder. BPD is said to be rooted in some level of childhood abandonment and yet with some who have it do so with no apparent abandonment. Some other factors must have been at play that evoked the pathology.
By the same token, the % of adult male homosexuals with zero sexual contact as a minor can likely also be explain by a plethora of other child developmental factors. But in many cases it does appear that homosexuality is a psychological and pathological reaction to early sexualisation at the hands of an older male.
It would also make sense why homosexuals have greater levels of drug misuse and other self- destructive behaviours, since they are actually victims of an early physical and psychological attack.
The evidence that homosexuality is rooted in the psychological and not the genetic is powerful and seductive. Do heterosexuals give birth to "gay babies"? If so then only the very tiniest % of babies (perhaps 2%) would be "gay babies", and a great many of those must apparently rely on sexual abuse as a child to truly bring out their supposedly "natural" homosexuality.
It may be possible that genetics and biology can be altered by what we ingest into our system though, what we eat and drink. Or at least certain chemicals in certain things.
There is evidence for there being a great deal of estrogen mimickers in food and even in the water supply. I would not rule out that in some cases this could cause hormonal changes that would perhaps see a male child develop more effeminately if not a homosexual per se.
However, although that would be interesting to debate in its own right, I stand by my opening position.
Homosexuality is grounded in the psychological.
pakicetus forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.