what is up with gays?

[Catch 22]

Well, according to Suburbanite's theory, Mary Cheney's, Candace Gingrich's, John Schlafly's and David Knight's homosexuality "...is a product of a twisted and violent society...", caused "... by acts of physical abuse, sexual molestation or rape...".

Wasn’t the whole “it’s sexual abuse!” theory tossed out long long ago?

[Mr.Vicchio]

SBah I aint in the mood to back that up remind me tomorrow and I will look it up.

[Mia]

Originally posted by Mia,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mia,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mr.Vicchio, I love being called a repressed homosexual because I belive the gay lifestyle is wrong. Sorry but my moral upbringing and religous beliefs, along with ya know, those nasty health statics all point int he direction of Being Gay, bad for ya. So whatever.  My girlfriend had a good laugh at that though.

Don't bring religion into it unless you are similarly going to go against pre-marital sex (obviously you don't) and other sins with the same intensity.

Did God say being a homosexual was worse than sex outside of marriage? Noooooooooooooo.

So are you above Him and decided it should be on His behalf?[/b][/quote]

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Suburbanite+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I asked you a question about the twin’s topic, and I didn't get a reply. Of these studies, where does it say again that these are twins separated at birth?[/b]

Considering the following quote from you...

Originally posted by Suburbanite+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don’t trust very many “scientific” studies on homosexuals because it is such a politically polluted idea. I really don’t want to keep getting into the “studies” I’d much rather give my own word, and yours, merit and discuss the issue from there.[/b]

...what difference will it make to provide *any* scientific evidence? <!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite@
I stand by my points, and I think that you’ll find much less research on them because there is no political body willing to fund any such thing.[/quote]Due, in part, to the Bush administration's threat to withdraw all government funding from universities whose research includes the word "homosexual". That is, unless the word "cure" appears as well. Even the budgets for governmental health agencies were threatened over the same issue. What's next, the unmarried same-sex partnered households question in the Census? <!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite
These are my ideas, and yes, I’m not too into posting “facts” about them, but I’d love to keep talking to you about them on their own merit. It has taken me will over a year to fully form these ideas, and have had massive amount of influence from Psychologists, Homosexuals, and Christian Fundamentalists. [/quote]Correlation is not causation. But OK. I'm game. In your opinion, what's left to discuss?

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Catch 22 Wasn’t the whole “it’s sexual abuse!” theory tossed out long long ago?

In the context of the broad brush assertion Suburbanite has expressed about *all* homosexuals, yes. However, there *is* a body of evidence that indicates some survivors of sexual abuse will act out in a manner similar to their abuser(s).

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Suburbanite Anyways, lets look at the twin’s studies. Twins, Identical, monozygotic or whatever that word was, are more likely to share their homosexuality because of their genetics on a level you're not looking at. They both share a strikingly similar mind, especially at a young age. This is before they grow up and seek to distinguish their identity from those around them, so they are relatively same-thinking or nearly. Now, because of this, their reaction to abuse (the types aforementioned) will be similar more often than those without the same minds, the Fraternal Twins.

The prevalence of homosexuality amongst fraternal twins raised in the same environment is near that of the general population. Sorry man. I'm just not buying it. :)

However I did confirm the obscure JNAM study you cited has been ordered via interlibrary loan and will be here shortly.

[rhod01]

"Homosexuality doesn’t come from a land of flowers and chocolate but one of molestation, rape, incest, child abuse, etc."

"Homosexuality isn’t inevitable in situations of rape or molestation of a child, but it is a product of it."

How rude! You presume that aevery non-heterosexual has been raped or molested? How would you know? I take offense!

[Catch 22]

Originally posted by italiangm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (italiangm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Catch 22 Wasn’t the whole “it’s sexual abuse!” theory tossed out long long ago?

In the context of the broad brush assertion Suburbanite has expressed about *all* homosexuals, yes. However, there *is* a body of evidence that indicates some survivors of sexual abuse will act out in a manner similar to their abuser(s).[/b][/quote]

Yes but that's more to do with pedophilia than anything else which in and of itself isn't homosexuality.

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Catch 22 Yes but that's more to do with pedophilia than anything else which in and of itself isn't homosexuality.

I don't know what the percentages are, but I do know many survivors of child sexual abuse don't become pedophiles. Some simply become attracted to the same sex for romantic and sexual intimacy in an age-appriopriate way. How do we determine if the attraction was caused by the abuse? Genes? Fetal hormones? Hard to say.

However, I *do* know *most* adult homosexuals aren't reporting violent experiences during age 0-7 at a rate any greater than adult heterosexuals, which is the basis for Surburbanite's argument.

[Catch 22]

don't know what the percentages are, but I do know many survivors of child sexual abuse don't become pedophiles. Some simply become attracted to the same sex for romantic and sexual intimacy in an age-appriopriate way. How do we determine if the attraction was caused by the abuse? Genes? Fetal hormones? Hard to say.

But could you truly say that is homosexuality? Many times in history we see homosexual activity where it doesn’t have much to do with being gay but satisfying a sexual need or a societal norm. Look at prison do you really think those guys are gay or just desperate? Or look at ancient Sparta, men were supposed to have sex with each other so as to strengthen comradery it had nothing to do with attraction to the same sex. Yet just about all soldiers did it and all spartan males were soldiers.

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Catch 22 But could you truly say that is homosexuality? Many times in history we see homosexual activity where it doesn’t have much to do with being gay but satisfying a sexual need or a societal norm. Look at prison do you really think those guys are gay or just desperate? Or look at ancient Sparta, men were supposed to have sex with each other so as to strengthen comradery it had nothing to do with attraction to the same sex. Yet just about all soldiers did it and all spartan males were soldiers.

My point is that you can't reliably tell what form of homosexuality is occurring under the conditions you cited unless you observe it and/or ask questions about it. There's sufficient historical evidence that Spartans were engaging in same-sex activity to satisfy societal duty *and* romantic desire. But unlike Spartans, there are enough prisoners, and survivors of sexual abuse, to help answer the question of situational or romantic homosexuality among these populations.

[Catch 22]

My point is that you can't reliably tell what form of homosexuality is occurring under the conditions you cited unless you observe it and/or ask questions about it. There's sufficient historical evidence that Spartans were engaging in same-sex activity to satisfy societal duty *and* romantic desire. But unlike Spartans, there are enough prisoners, and survivors of sexual abuse, to help answer the question of situational or romantic homosexuality among these populations.

I see what you mean I’m sure there was and still is a mix of both romantic and social homosexuality in these situations. But most likely the romantic homosexuality is a product of homosexuals within the population not straight people turned gay. Also since these situations promote this type of behavior people previously masking their sexuality might come out in the open about it. With this in mind it’s entirely possible that much of the homosexuality derived from these abusive relationships seems more like behavioral disposition derived from their traumatic experiences and not anything pertaining to true homosexual love.

[indierockboy]

whether homosexuality is 'caused' by a genetic factor is a 'choice', or a psychological 'disorder' is of dubious relevance. what is important is that there are a number of gay individuals, who are happy being gay, and are in want of the ability to marry. coming to a consensus on what, if anything, is the cause of homosexuality won't make the issue at hand change.

understanding is the first step towards acceptance. understanding why people are gay, however, is not so important as understanding that they are gay, that they are happy being gay, and that they intend to remain gay.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by italiangm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (italiangm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In the context of the broad brush assertion Suburbanite has expressed about *all* homosexuals, yes. However, there *is* a body of evidence that indicates some survivors of sexual abuse will act out in a manner similar to their abuser(s).[/b]

I claimed it is often the product of these things. I do claim it is always mental, never genetic and never a conscious choice though. It all depends on how the child’s mind functions mixed with his environment, the harsher the environment the higher the chances of homosexuality with the child.

Originally posted by italiangm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (italiangm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The prevalence of homosexuality amongst fraternal twins raised in the same environment is near that of the general population. Sorry man. I'm just not buying it. :) [/b]

That is not going against what I said either. Fraternal twins do not have the same genetic makeup, they have the same chances, as your studies claimed, as non-twin siblings.

Originally posted by Merlov, How rude! You presume that aevery non-heterosexual has been raped or molested? How would you know? I take offense!

I don’t presume much of anything, nor is it universal, but it is extremely rude. Which is why the research stops there.

Originally posted by italiangm, I don't know what the percentages are, but I do know many survivors of child sexual abuse don't become pedophiles. Some simply become attracted to the same sex for romantic and sexual intimacy in an age-appriopriate way. How do we determine if the attraction was caused by the abuse? Genes? Fetal hormones? Hard to say. However, I *do* know *most* adult homosexuals aren't reporting violent experiences during age 0-7 at a rate any greater than adult heterosexuals, which is the basis for Surburbanite's argument.

Quite the opposite. The victims of pedophilia are significantly more likely to be pedophiles themselves. Also, going on police reports, and I am sure you’ll agree, is hardly a conclusive base for any of this. Because, first of all, the 0-7 year old won’t realize he is a homosexual to its full extent for another 4 or more years, second because 0-7 year olds don’t report a lot of the molestations in the first place, and lastly because their sexual preference isn’t asked of them when they do report it.

<!--QuoteBegin-Catch 22,@


But could you truly say that is homosexuality? Many times in history we see homosexual activity where it doesn’t have much to do with being gay but satisfying a sexual need or a societal norm. Look at prison do you really think those guys are gay or just desperate? Or look at ancient Sparta, men were supposed to have sex with each other so as to strengthen comradery it had nothing to do with attraction to the same sex. Yet just about all soldiers did it and all spartan males were soldiers.[/quote]

Prison has nothing at all to do with desperation. Rape in prison is about violence and empowerment, the actual sexuality behind it only exists to further subjugate the “giver”. Now, talking about Greece, Pederasty was not only accepted, but expected so the cultural feelings are much different.

<!--QuoteBegin-indierockboy,
whether homosexuality is 'caused' by a genetic factor is a 'choice', or a psychological 'disorder' is of dubious relevance. what is important is that there are a number of gay individuals, who are happy being gay, and are in want of the ability to marry. coming to a consensus on what, if anything, is the cause of homosexuality won't make the issue at hand change.

understanding is the first step towards acceptance. understanding why people are gay, however, is not so important as understanding that they are gay, that they are happy being gay, and that they intend to remain gay.[/quote]

Of course, but I think those involved at this stage in the “debate” are well aware of homosexual exists and none of us condemn it. We don’t want the dialogue to stagnate now do we?

[Mia]

Originally posted by italiangm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (italiangm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>However, I *do* know *most* adult homosexuals aren't reporting violent experiences during age 0-7 at a rate any greater than adult heterosexuals, which is the basis for Surburbanite's argument.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite,


Because, first of all, the 0-7 year old won’t realize he is a homosexual to its full extent for another 4 or more years, second because 0-7 year olds don’t report a lot of the molestations in the first place, and lastly because their sexual preference isn’t asked of them when they do report it.

[/quote]

He wasn't speaking of 0-7 year olds either reporting abuse or stating sexual orientation.

He's saying that adult homosexuals, when surveyed, do not show a higher incidence of having been abused during their 0-7 years. Which would indicate there is no correlation between childhood abuse and adult homosexuality.

[Mia]

Originally posted by italiangm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (italiangm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> However, I *do* know *most* adult homosexuals aren't reporting violent experiences during age 0-7 at a rate any greater than adult heterosexuals, which is the basis for Surburbanite's argument.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite,


Because, first of all, the 0-7 year old won’t realize he is a homosexual to its full extent for another 4 or more years, second because 0-7 year olds don’t report a lot of the molestations in the first place, and lastly because their sexual preference isn’t asked of them when they do report it.

[/quote]

He wasn't talking about 0-7 year olds making statements about abuse or their sexual orientation.

He said adult homosexuals, when surveyed, do not report having been abused in their 0-7 years at any higher rate than heterosexuals. This would indicate a lack of correlation between childhood abuse and adult homosexuality.

[Suburbanite]

I posted some information disproving what you've said, you might want to reference it, or counter with some proof.

[italiangm]

Originally posted by Suburbanite I posted some information disproving what you've said, you might want to reference it, or counter with some proof.

I'm not quite sure who you're directing this comment to. Regardless, here's a point of order...

When I countered with cites to disprove your assertion, one of your responses claimed "I really don’t want to keep getting into the 'studies'. I’d much rather give my own word, and yours, merit and discuss the issue from there."

Then in the quotation above, you ask participants to "...reference..." your information and "...counter with some proof."

I'd be happy to debate either way. But switching back and forth to sidestep responding with a like-kind rebuttal whenever it's expedient to do so is an unfair tactic.

[Suburbanite]

It was to Mia, it is usless to express her desires of truth as fact in the face of real facts. I wrote more to you (see the pages before this one).

[Mia]

Originally posted by italiangm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (italiangm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Suburbanite I posted some information disproving what you've said, you might want to reference it, or counter with some proof.

I'm not quite sure who you're directing this comment to. Regardless, here's a point of order...

When I countered with cites to disprove your assertion, one of your responses claimed "I really don’t want to keep getting into the 'studies'. I’d much rather give my own word, and yours, merit and discuss the issue from there."

Then in the quotation above, you ask participants to "...reference..." your information and "...counter with some proof."

I'd be happy to debate either way. But switching back and forth to sidestep responding with a like-kind rebuttal whenever it's expedient to do so is an unfair tactic.[/b][/quote]


I'll have to agree with Italiangm. What would constitute the proof you asked me for?