DeletedUser
This is a response to a tangential statement made by WillyPete in another thread, when he was defending his faith-based condemnation of homosexuals ---
No Willy, it is not a choice. Preference is subjective and often oppressed by societal pressures, but it is clearly not a choice. Read on:
There are physiological/biological (DNA) differentiations that result in differing results and influenced by, and of, prenatal hormonal secretions. Since 1973, the bulk of the study has been performed by psychologists, because in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association, along with professionals in medicine, mental health, behavioral and social sciences, conclusively determined that homosexuality is not a disorder, nor abnormal. As psychiatrists focus on the treatment (usually through imposition of medication) of disorders, this decision by the APA effectively ended any further psychiatry-based pathology studies.
However, psychologists study all aspects of human behavior, not merely the treatment of disorders. In the decades since 1973, the American Psychological Association determined that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. I.e., the standing, 40-year consensus in the professional fields are that homosexuality is a, "normal variation of human sexual orientation." [1]
In respects to same-sex marriage, the American Psychological Association, in a brief to the Supreme Court, concluded, "there is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage." [2]
Further, earlier studies were made by the U.S. military as far back as World War II, with the oldest recorded study affirming what has been consistently presented in their reports, consistent with present findings, which is that, "the homosexual leads a useful productive life, conforming with all dictates of the community, except its sexual requirements" and was "neither a burden nor a detriment to society." Fry and Rostow reported that, based on evidence in service records, homosexuals were no better or worse than other soldiers and that many "performed well in various military jobs" [3]
In all the valid studies, it was determined that homosexual and heterosexual early histories ("nurture") do not differ substantially as to warrant conclusive external causations. Early studies determined prenatal hormones to be a major factor in determining sexuality (and transgender status), but a DNA study back in 2003 found 54 genes associated with the expression of sex, indicating that while hormones are a factor, they are not the only "nature" determinate. Additional studies have since provided ample evidence that DNA and prenatal hormones play a markedly significant factor in determining sexual orientation. [4] [5]
Basically what this means is, quoting Dr. Bogaert of Brock University, "the environment a person is raised in really makes not much difference." [6]
Reparative therapy groups, such as NARTH, are not advocated by APA and are, in fact, condemned by the greater majority of professional psychologists. Unfortunately, obtaining a degree in psychology is not necessarily a challenging endeavor and, for the most part, psychology is a field of interpretations as opposed to tried & true applications. This tends to lead to people with preconceived notions (religious or otherwise) baying overlay on their cognitive interpretation of issues and challenges. As a result, these sorts of groups exist because enough like-minded homophobes, with degrees in psychology, can and do decide to ignore the American Psychiatric Association's findings, the American Psychological Association's findings, and the emerging biological findings that pose in contra to their not-so-hidden agenda. As one activist, Wayne Besen, puts it, "(Reparative therapy) is a kinder, gentler form of homophobia." [8]
So, it is not merely genes, but prenatal hormones and other physiological factors which "cannot" be changed by a mental choice, anymore than you can change the diminutive nature of your <undercarriage> by staring at it and saying, "get bigger damnit!" If you're a heterosexual man, you are aroused by an attractive woman, and not aroused by a handsome man. From there, you cannot "choose" to be aroused by a man. Essentially, it's a biochemical issue, based on the biological makeup of your brain (the exception to this is physical stimulation, which I address in a later paragraph).
To add, there is the issue that it isn't a homo vs hetero equation. It's not ones and zeros. It's not, "you're gay, I'm straight." The measures for such are based on your genetic makeup, prenatal hormonal influences, and other physiological factors that could present you anywhere on the spectrum of sexual orientation. So you could be predisposed slightly, or largely, to persons of the same sex, depending on where on that spectrum you land. I.e., consider it variables. From one extreme to the other, and everyone in the middle of those two extremes. In fact, you could consider it two variables:
99.9% same sex aroused ----------------------------------------- 0.1% same sex aroused
99.9% opposite sex aroused -------------------------------------- 0.1% opposite sex aroused
A person with a low same sex and opposite sex arousal would very well be gender neutral, whilst someone with high arousals from both sexes would be bi-sexual. However, more commonly, one arousal pattern firmly dominates with the opposite sex pattern being the genetic norm. So yes, a predominant interest in same sex is abnormal, but it is nonetheless suspected to be a natural process due to environmental responses (high population, secondary/tertiary males from the same womb, etc). Just to clarify, environment does not translate to "nurture," it translates to the environment in which a child is born in (not brought up in) and of changes occurring within the womb, or prior, as a result of signals received from the progenitors. I.e., pre-birth changes induced by environmental factors.
In fact, as a 60 minutes (made for lay television viewers) report indicates, "Psychologists used to believe homosexuality was caused by nurture ... but that theory has been disproved. Today, scientists are looking at genes, environment, brain structure and hormones. There is one area of consensus: that homosexuality involves more than just sexual behavior; it’s physiological." ~ 60 minutes article (2006)
Finally, there are the instances of sexual addiction and of misinterpreting sexual stimulation as arousal preference, which is a sort of psychological distortion, or confusion, due to a traumatic event (or series of events). As I wrote in another thread:
[1] http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
[2] http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
[3] Allan Bérubé, Coming Out Under Fire, 1990, pp. 170-171
[4] Friedman RC, Downey JI. Homosexuality. N Engl J Med.1994; 331 :923 –930 <Free Full Text>
[5] Stronski Huwiler SM, Remafedi G. Adolescent homosexuality. Adv Pediatr.1998; 45 :107 –144 <Medline>
[6] Bogaert, A.F. (2006). Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and sexual orientation in men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 103, 10771-10774. <USA Today article>
[7] http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html
[8] http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/reptherapy.pdf
(( oh, and in case you're wondering Willy, the only person I plagiarized here was myself. ))
No Willy, it is not a choice. Preference is subjective and often oppressed by societal pressures, but it is clearly not a choice. Read on:
There are physiological/biological (DNA) differentiations that result in differing results and influenced by, and of, prenatal hormonal secretions. Since 1973, the bulk of the study has been performed by psychologists, because in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association, along with professionals in medicine, mental health, behavioral and social sciences, conclusively determined that homosexuality is not a disorder, nor abnormal. As psychiatrists focus on the treatment (usually through imposition of medication) of disorders, this decision by the APA effectively ended any further psychiatry-based pathology studies.
However, psychologists study all aspects of human behavior, not merely the treatment of disorders. In the decades since 1973, the American Psychological Association determined that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. I.e., the standing, 40-year consensus in the professional fields are that homosexuality is a, "normal variation of human sexual orientation." [1]
In respects to same-sex marriage, the American Psychological Association, in a brief to the Supreme Court, concluded, "there is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage." [2]
Further, earlier studies were made by the U.S. military as far back as World War II, with the oldest recorded study affirming what has been consistently presented in their reports, consistent with present findings, which is that, "the homosexual leads a useful productive life, conforming with all dictates of the community, except its sexual requirements" and was "neither a burden nor a detriment to society." Fry and Rostow reported that, based on evidence in service records, homosexuals were no better or worse than other soldiers and that many "performed well in various military jobs" [3]
In all the valid studies, it was determined that homosexual and heterosexual early histories ("nurture") do not differ substantially as to warrant conclusive external causations. Early studies determined prenatal hormones to be a major factor in determining sexuality (and transgender status), but a DNA study back in 2003 found 54 genes associated with the expression of sex, indicating that while hormones are a factor, they are not the only "nature" determinate. Additional studies have since provided ample evidence that DNA and prenatal hormones play a markedly significant factor in determining sexual orientation. [4] [5]
Basically what this means is, quoting Dr. Bogaert of Brock University, "the environment a person is raised in really makes not much difference." [6]
Not true Willy and it sounds like you've been listening to the unsubstantiated claims of reparative therapy, which is the effort by some to impose therapy to change a person's sexuality. The APA is rather firm on this issue, which is that it is unethical because there is no supporting evidence of it being effective and there is evidence indicating it is potentially harmful. [7]
Reparative therapy groups, such as NARTH, are not advocated by APA and are, in fact, condemned by the greater majority of professional psychologists. Unfortunately, obtaining a degree in psychology is not necessarily a challenging endeavor and, for the most part, psychology is a field of interpretations as opposed to tried & true applications. This tends to lead to people with preconceived notions (religious or otherwise) baying overlay on their cognitive interpretation of issues and challenges. As a result, these sorts of groups exist because enough like-minded homophobes, with degrees in psychology, can and do decide to ignore the American Psychiatric Association's findings, the American Psychological Association's findings, and the emerging biological findings that pose in contra to their not-so-hidden agenda. As one activist, Wayne Besen, puts it, "(Reparative therapy) is a kinder, gentler form of homophobia." [8]
So, it is not merely genes, but prenatal hormones and other physiological factors which "cannot" be changed by a mental choice, anymore than you can change the diminutive nature of your <undercarriage> by staring at it and saying, "get bigger damnit!" If you're a heterosexual man, you are aroused by an attractive woman, and not aroused by a handsome man. From there, you cannot "choose" to be aroused by a man. Essentially, it's a biochemical issue, based on the biological makeup of your brain (the exception to this is physical stimulation, which I address in a later paragraph).
To add, there is the issue that it isn't a homo vs hetero equation. It's not ones and zeros. It's not, "you're gay, I'm straight." The measures for such are based on your genetic makeup, prenatal hormonal influences, and other physiological factors that could present you anywhere on the spectrum of sexual orientation. So you could be predisposed slightly, or largely, to persons of the same sex, depending on where on that spectrum you land. I.e., consider it variables. From one extreme to the other, and everyone in the middle of those two extremes. In fact, you could consider it two variables:
99.9% same sex aroused ----------------------------------------- 0.1% same sex aroused
99.9% opposite sex aroused -------------------------------------- 0.1% opposite sex aroused
A person with a low same sex and opposite sex arousal would very well be gender neutral, whilst someone with high arousals from both sexes would be bi-sexual. However, more commonly, one arousal pattern firmly dominates with the opposite sex pattern being the genetic norm. So yes, a predominant interest in same sex is abnormal, but it is nonetheless suspected to be a natural process due to environmental responses (high population, secondary/tertiary males from the same womb, etc). Just to clarify, environment does not translate to "nurture," it translates to the environment in which a child is born in (not brought up in) and of changes occurring within the womb, or prior, as a result of signals received from the progenitors. I.e., pre-birth changes induced by environmental factors.
In fact, as a 60 minutes (made for lay television viewers) report indicates, "Psychologists used to believe homosexuality was caused by nurture ... but that theory has been disproved. Today, scientists are looking at genes, environment, brain structure and hormones. There is one area of consensus: that homosexuality involves more than just sexual behavior; it’s physiological." ~ 60 minutes article (2006)
Finally, there are the instances of sexual addiction and of misinterpreting sexual stimulation as arousal preference, which is a sort of psychological distortion, or confusion, due to a traumatic event (or series of events). As I wrote in another thread:
"You can be sexually stimulated by either sex, but that's not the same thing as arousal, and it is this confusion that hits victims of molestation or rape, in that they are confused by their having enjoyed the encounter to some degree, thus start questioning whether it was rape, was molestation, or in the case of same sex incidents, whether they are homosexual. As such, some victims of young age same sex molestation/rape can travel the route of bisexuality for having experienced sexual stimulation long before experiencing arousal. This, in turn, would result in their seeking sexual satisfaction in relationships (sex addiction), as opposed to love/attraction."
It is also the above that you are misinterpreting as, "changed to homosexuality and away from it," in which said events are not truly environment, but incidents of psychological (and physical) trauma which could result in a person attempting to come to terms (adverse healing) with the events they experienced and the manner in which their sexual organs reacted to said experience(s). Without the proper tools, the knowledge, to understand there is a difference between sexual stimulation and sexual arousal, a person could heal incorrectly. Adverse healing is an issue that can be addressed through therapy with a trained (and informed) psychologist. However, if there are no incidents of sexual molestation and/or rape, it is universally held that therapy is totally inappropriate.[1] http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
[2] http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
[3] Allan Bérubé, Coming Out Under Fire, 1990, pp. 170-171
[4] Friedman RC, Downey JI. Homosexuality. N Engl J Med.1994; 331 :923 –930 <Free Full Text>
[5] Stronski Huwiler SM, Remafedi G. Adolescent homosexuality. Adv Pediatr.1998; 45 :107 –144 <Medline>
[6] Bogaert, A.F. (2006). Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and sexual orientation in men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 103, 10771-10774. <USA Today article>
[7] http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html
[8] http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/reptherapy.pdf
(( oh, and in case you're wondering Willy, the only person I plagiarized here was myself. ))
I know this one is actually in support of it but honestly do we need yet another pointless arguement from the god squad or moral brigade yet again ?