Re: 2007, but no homosexual gene, protein, hormone, enzyme or evidence.

In article <f4ne90$cej$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Qazfez" <raot@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-2A791F.15570512062007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip discussions stripped of context>


why
was there such an avalanche of propaganda

I disagree with your use of that word.

Why? The biological determinist scientists and their journalist allies, many
of whom are homosexual themselves, have debased science to the level of
propaganda. That is the correct word for it. In the long term, it will be
exposed as propaganda, even more thoroughly than it already has been, and
unpleasant consequences are likely to follow.

Speculation based on false assumptions.

about homosexuality being
biologically determined during the early through mid 1990s, at
precisely the moment when homosexuality was a highly contentious
issue in American politics?

You don't know your gay history very well, Qazfez. Homosexuality has
been contentious in American politics since McCarthy's Red Scare.

Homosexuality was not a contentious issue in the 1990s in the same way that
it was in the 1950s. In the 1950s, although there were some gay
organizations, homosexuality was a marginal issue. Homosexuals were members
of a widely despised minority, and pretty much the whole culture, including
self-professed liberals, were against them. It was only as a result of the
cultural upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s that this situation changed -
homosexuality became much more visible, and liberals slowly started to take
it up as a cause, which they had previously done only in a very limited way.
The situation became inflamed by the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s, and
the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold laws against sodomy in 1986.
Under those circumstances, gay activists were feeling very defensive and
obviously believed that they needed to prove that there was no choice about
being homosexual, that it was an inherent part of one's identity - embracing
biological determinism was their way of doing that.

The beliefs make sense, but even then, Ihad read about twins' studies
and the scientific consensus was that genetics were a strong factor but
not he only one.

Then in the early 1990s, the Republicans looked as though they were about to
loose power in the US and that a potentially more gay-friendly
administration might be around the corner, so the gay activists seized their
chance and began their 'born-gay' propaganda barrage.

Bull***.

They simply went right
ahead and believed that science had absolutely proven, or was soon going to
prove, what they desperately wanted to be true.

Which way do you want it?

In actual fact, the science
behind the claim that people are 'born gay' is very weak.

Well, that's true, but you portray that claim as being the only one that
gays made. You are setting up a straw-man argument ... and rewriting
history to suit yourself.

Do you really think that it is purely
coincidental that large numbers of stories about the supposed
biological basis of homosexuality appeared in the media at exactly
the moment when American homosexuals needed to persuade the
heterosexual American public that they were 'born that way', and thus
not some sort of freaks who were deliberately choosing a perverted
lifestyle?

Hardly. Christian Fundamentalists were attacking gays left and right
with propaganda and cliches such as "lifestyle choice". It made sense
that if someone did honest research into the psychology of gay people
and discovered that it was not a conscious choice and not as easily
changed as some propagandists would have everyone believe, then gay
people would publicize that research.

Oh yes? You realize of course that you have now effectively contradicted
what you wrote above, which apparently implied that there was no connection
between the politics and the science?

In your black/white world, yes. In a world of subtle differences of
meaning which are obviously foreign to you, no.

Anyway, it's not true that only
Christian fundamentalists claim that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice -
some gay people say this themselves.

Some. Nice weasel-word.

[snip]

Some researchers may be interested in finding out how to change gay
people's sexual orientation. But this is likely to run into problems:
* Sexual orientation is generally believed to be a deeply rooted aspect
of personality and difficult to change

Yes, but hypothetically speaking, if they did find a biological basis to
homosexuality, then they might be able to alter it through genetic surgery.
I strongly doubt that this would ever work, but I can see how they're
thinking.

No, they would not, as I have already explained. Genes and epigenes
might influence a person's development of personality, but once the
brain's structure and personality are in place, the genes have limited
effect.

* Since gay people function well in society and live happy, productive
lives, there's no evidence that their homosexuality is an illness or
defect that needs treatment

Gay people are less likely than straight people to live happy lives. This is
due partly to discrimination against homosexuals, but it is also partly to
factors inherent in the nature of (male) homosexuality. Men tend to want to
be promiscuous more than women do. Heterosexual men's ability to be
promiscuous is usually limited by women's reluctance to engage in such
behaviour. Homosexual men do not suffer from this problem, so it's easy for
them to get lots of promiscuous sex - which in turn makes it harder for them
to form stable relationships, and leads to them getting a lot of venereal
disease. So objectively speaking, people are much better off being
heterosexual than homosexual.

I reject the argument. For one, in the end, it's based on sexually
transmitted diseases, which are not a feature of homosexuality. For
another, plenty of gay men have indeed created stable relationships with
their gay partners.

It is very hard to argue that society would not be better off if
homosexuality did not exist. Clearly homosexuality is harmful to society,

"clearly"? You have provided no evidence for this.

so
as far as I'm concerned, society, from its point of view, is entirely right
to want to prevent or eradicate homosexuality. If gay people don't like
that, then they should respond, not that homosexuality is not harmful to
society (the dishonest, politically correct answer), but that they don't
give a damn about society (the brave, honest, politically incorrect answer).

I do care about society. I am not harmful to society.

* Any person has the right to refuse treatment. So even if you were to
determine that my homosexuality was an illness that you are suffering
from (I'm not suffering from it, so why else would you want to change
it?), I would refuse treatment.

Yes, but that's just you - many gay people would accept such a 'cure' if it
existed.

No, actually, this is a point of discussion that comes up now and again
among gay discussion groups. Most gay men would not want such a 'cure".

[snip]

Which part of it? Do you think that it will be proven that
homosexuality is biologically determined,

Yes. Through a combination of genetics, epigenetics, hormonal
environment in the womb, childhood environmental factors such as diet,
and family psychology, and so forth.

None of the scientists who think that homosexuality is biologically
determined think that 'family psychology' has anything to do with it.

Well, by definition, the ones who think it is pure genetics think that
way, but most scientists do not think it is pure genetics.

That's
part of what 'biologically determined' means. In any case, it is highly
unlikely that they will ever prove any such thing, although no doubt they
will go on making total fools of themselves by trying.

In any case, I just told you what I believe, so there's no need to set
up your version of the argument again and declare that it is wrong.

or that some way will be
found to alter it through gene therapy?

No. Gene therapy can change biochemical reactions, but I doubt it can
change the brain pathways that enable people to recognize, identify, and
react to potential sexual mates.

Tell that to Chandler Burr.

I don't have to.

http://www.chandlerburr.com/separate/excerpts/1/

"When the media report on the biological research of the black box
called homosexuality, they do so under the ubiquitous headline:
"Homosexuality: Genes or Choice?" The headline is short and appears
moderate. It says, "What this story means is if we find a gene for
homosexuality, then people don't choose to be gay, but if we don't fine
a gene, people do choose to be gay. We need to find a gene to know
things about the trait." This interpretation of the press' is entirely
incorrect."

Hmm. This guy writes some interesting things.

"ABC's science reporter David Marash, for example, said that a genetic
locus linked to homosexuality "suggests that homosexuality may not be a
choice," which was to say that unless we located a gene for
homosexuality, then homosexuality was a choice (or, at a minimum, that
we somehow couldn't know whether it was a choice or not). This was the
equivalent of saying that since we haven't found the gene that governs
left-handedness- and we haven't- then left-handed people choose to be
left-handed (or, at a minimum, we can't determine if they do so), which
no intelligent person would argue."

"Can interior orientation be altered clinically? ... No"

[snip]

It doesn't matter who made the claim. If you actually cared about the
subject, you could have looked it up yourself, and probably would
already have done so.

Well, then. I think it's settled that human behavior is not exclusively
biologically determined.

That wasn't the question.

I stand by it nevertheless: Human behavior is not exclusively
biologically determined.


The most ludicrous thing about it is that they use simple-minded
arguments which, if they were correct, would mean that no research
into genes or hormones would ever have needed doing.

Why not? Do you doubt that sickle cell anemia is genetic?

What does that have to do with anything? This isn't a discussion of
sickle cell anemia.

It's a discussion which involves human genetics. There's an unspoken
assumption that genetics can't cause a condition such as homosexuality
(perceived harmful), but this assumption can be disproved by showing at
least one harmful condition which is genetic. Sickle-cell anemia is one
such. Thus it is conceivable that there is a genetic component to
homosexuality.

I never argued that genetic factors can't cause things that are harmful - I
criticized the biological determinist view of homosexuality on other
grounds.

"Biological determinist view" is slippery enough that you can get away
with saying anything about it. You've drifted from the topic being
*genetic* or epigenetic to it being otherwise biological (hormonal,
nutritional, environmental) as well.

But you have conveniently ignored Chandler Burr's writings that show
there are genetic and environmental causes.

Did research
stop on that subject when we discovered that? Genes and development
are a very hot, and very important topic right now.

Yeah, they certainly are. Which is why a lot of stupid scientists are
making foolish claims that will embarrass them, and their media
supporters, over the long term.

More idle speculation.

We'll see. I think I'll be proven right.

More idle speculation.

[snip]

Do a google search for 'born gay.' It will produce lots of relevant
information, or rather propaganda.

In other words, no geneticist or regular in this thread has claimed that
anyone is born gay. All the evidence so far points to a complex
interaction of genes, epigenes, hormones, prenatal environment, and
early childhood experiences.

LeVay claims that people are born gay. Bailey claims that people are born
gay. A couple of other idiots, in a book published just a few years ago,
claimed that people are born gay. Believe me, it's a common claim.

"Common" is another slippery term. Right now, it means "four or more".

[snip]

I do not remember, and cannot imagine choosing my sexual desires.

So you say. I'm sure you're telling the truth. I'm not sure why you
think that matters, however.

Well, it seems to matter a lot to you. You insist that your
homosexuality was a conscious, revocable choice, and you have stated
that it is a choice for everyone. You have often denied mechanisms that
remove it as a choice for people, and you have in this very post several
times called "propaganda" any literature that supports the idea that it
is not a choice.

The point I was trying to make is that one can't just automatically assume
that, because one doesn't remember choosing to be homosexual, that it wasn't
a choice.

That's not my argument. But yours is this: homosexuality is a conscious,
revocable choice, dammit, and if someone denies having made that choice,
he must have forgotten about it.

No one remembers every choice they ever
made in their lives, so why couldn't you have made a choice and then
forgot you had done so?

This is a lame ad-hoc construction that attempts to defend your notion
of homosexuality as a conscious choice by saying that anyone who makes
that conscious choice is likely to suffer immediate amnesia for the
event of the choice itself. That's kind of ridiculous, for then many gay
people would report a very different life story: "Well, in high school I
was just like every other boy; I sported wood when I saw a pretty girl
and even slept with a few of them. It was really good. But then,
however, something changed -- I can't remember the actual moment, but
ever since then I've had the same reaction to men, but not to women. I
met other gay men who were just as confused as I was, but we all had a
good time."

Most people are pretty much confused during their adolescence. Confused
people are not at all likely to understand what they are doing with their
minds or how their experience is affecting them. So I stand by my claim.

I can't argue with logic like that.

Nor
in fact can I imagine changing any of my desires by a simple act of
will. I have changed my desires for food *somewhat* by forcing
myself to eat differently, but that was indirect and moderate.

Really. In that case, then, how do you know that you wouldn't change
your sexual desires, at least to some extent, by changing your sexual
habits?

Many gay men and Lesbians have tried. They often report that it was just
as yucky as straight people imagine gay sex would be for them.

Well then, I think they have a problem that they should get over.
Heterosexual sex is normal - if someone finds it gross, they likely have an
emotional disorder.

Maybe you should explain what "normal" and "abnormal" mean without
simply a minus sign in an equation.

And even if it was as simple an act of will as you suggest, Quazfez, why
should I make that choice? I had a difficult couple of years getting
used to the idea of being gay, during which time I tried to become
straight (it was yucky and I don't recommend it). I have integrated
being gay into my self-image and I'm happy with it. And now I'm asked to
give all that up, change much about my life, have sex with other people
than the ones I do now, and live a "normal" life. Why should I do that?

I didn't say you should - my remarks were not really about you personally.

Most of your remarks don't apply to me ... and you tend to deny my
experience as relevant.

From what I have read, intense efforts using therapy have been
utter
failures for changing sexual orientation.

The effectiveness of therapy in changing sexual orientation is a
matter of dispute. There is little convincing evidence either that it
is, or for that matter isn't, helpful.

While there is little evidence to support the success of any of the
"reparative therapies" and what exists would not pass any kind of review
by experts in psychological research, let alone ethics review. (Such
"therapy" generally requires a lot of counseling and prayer, and the
criteria for success are pretty sorry: Often success is measured by the
client no longer fantasizing about gay sex while masturbating. There's
no evidence that such therapy can cause a person to actually find MOTOS
sexually attractive.

Well you've probably heard of the study by Robert Spitzer. He did find some
evidence that reparative therapy could be helpful.

Why is it that when you find one or a handful of researchers who find
things you disagree with, they're deluded, and when you find ones you
agree with, they're telling the truth?

http://www.narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html

Have you analyzed his experimental setup for possible sources of error?
Basically he found that white Christian Americans who wanted to change
their homosexuality could, if they tried really hard.

"As for completely reorienting from homosexual to heterosexual, most
respondents indicated that they still occasionally struggled with
unwanted attractions--in fact, only 11% of the men and 37% of the women
reported complete change."

There is, in fact, a lot of evidence that it is not helpful and even
harms people. "Reparative Therapy" holds out a false promise of
happiness, and when this is not achieved, the clients tend to suffer
depression and further neurosis. That clients can no longer honestly
enjoy the sexual attractions they had before, yet don't have any real
sexual attractions to replace them, robs them of the ability to enjoy
life as sexual beings.

If these clients, as they claim, do not want to be gay, I don't think they
would ever have 'enjoyed' their gay sexual attractions.

Many psychologists believe that a better therapy is to help these people
become at ease with their sexuality.

Of course, supporting the notion that sexual orientation is an easy,
conscious, revocable choice is incompatible with supporting the idea
that "reparative therapy" is effective or based on proper psychological
theory.

I think one should leave open the possibility that a therapy can be helpful
even if they theory behind it is not perfectly correct. Sexuality is
complex, and can be seen from a lot of different perspectives.

Remember this point, for you are about to forget it.

What the
reparative therapists say about it may be correct in some ways and mistaken
in others.

Fluff. Why should there be "reparative" therapy to begin with?

Can you understand the
difference between choosing to *act and choosing your *desires?

No. I don't think there is a difference. There couldn't be, because
if desires were not choices, then actions couldn't be either.

You have a simplistic and mistaken view of the psychology of attraction.

For a time I was at odds with my desires. I wanted my desires to be
other than they were.

I honestly doubt that it is possible, even in principle, to have desires
about what one's desires should be. If someone thinks they do, it's probably
evidence of confusion.

You are mistaken.

When my male friends saw young women, they'd sport
wood

I think that's a vulgar expression.

They had erections.

and ogle them; when I saw them, nothing happened. But, when I say
young men, I had wood and I tried oh so hard not to ogle ... I did not
want that to happen. I did not want to desire men.

If you really hadn't, then you wouldn't.

You are mistaken.

During that time I
once *chose* to have sex with a woman. I was young and horny, and I
slogged through it, but there was no *attraction* to her. I would have
liked it much better had she been a man, or had I desired her sexually.
Desires are not the same thing as choices.

Why not? If desires are not choices, then nothing is a choice, since
everything we do comes from our desires.

You are again trying to oversimplify the complexity of human desires.
You need to remember what you wrote earlier.

[snip]

Did you think about sex clearly as an adolescent? Or did you think
about it in a confused and muddled way, with all sorts of disturbing
emotions swirling through your mind? If it's the latter, which I
suspect is the experience of most people, then you might not have
really realized what you were doing - you might have made a choice at
some point, and not noticed it due to the distraction and confusion
you were undergoing. Your experience or memory of making a choice
might have got lost in the swirl.

Again, requiring amnesia surrounding the decision about sexual
orientation is a lame, ad-hoc argument. The experiences of people with
whom I have discussed this do not match your weak hypothesis.

So you claim, but maybe they are not thinking about it clearly? I'm asking a
valid question here, and your responses don't really answer it.

You haven't changed your point very much. From amnesia to muddleheaded
thinking is not much of a change, considering that your scenario demands
that everyone (except you) forgets the choice they made.

I have
never experienced, nor do I know anyone, who seems to have chosen
this. I believe some people are terrible at introspection, and do
not understand what goes ion in their own minds.

I believe the data backs me up on this.

I'm not sure what it would mean to simple decide to want something
different.

The decision might creep up on you, bit by bit, without your
realizing what was happening.

More made-up explanations to bend the facts into another mold.

Yet you don't explain why what I'm suggesting is impossible.

I'm explaining why it's an improbable and complex explanation. Occam's
Razor suggests that the simpler explanation be accepted.

[snip]

Yes, but it would always be my mother tongue. Gays can be celibate
or get married of they want to, also. That doesn't change their
desires directly.

Ah, so perhaps it changes them indirectly?

No, it does not. Gay men were frequently told that their desires for men
were only a developmental stage that they would grow out of. (This is a
false notion, BTW. Straight men do not generally recall having had
sexual attractions to other males.)

Yet sometimes they do?

Sure, maybe. I don't pretend to speak for everyone the way you do.

They were encouraged to marry in the
hopes that their straight desires would appear. They did not, but the
gay desires continued. Such marriages were lies and frequently ended up
in unhappy divorce. I have heard many gay men tell variations of this
story; they, the women they married, and their children were done a
cruel disservice by this mistaken notion.

In short, it doesn't work that way.

But maybe it does for some people.

Sure, maybe.

The experience of many seems to be that they get married,
discover that they are gay, get divorced and pair up with a male.

Many, but not all?

You can't hold out the ones who did not divorce as any kind of evidence.
You do not know whether their lives are happy or miserable; you do not
know how many are hanging on to their families out of internalized
homophobia, homophobia from their families, fear of ostracization should
they divorce...

They could be perfectly happy for all you know. Maybe they did become
heterosexual.

Sure, maybe.

But you can't take their hypothetical experience and generalize it to
all gays, and then insist that they all do that.

No, I'm mistaken. *You* can.

[snip]

For heaven's sake - it's perfectly obvious that the idea that
homosexuality is biologically determined is a political propaganda
tool of the gay rights movement. Anyone who doesn't realize this
simply has not been paying attention.

At least this idea has some scientific basis. I do not agree with the
idea that sexual orientation is determined purely by genetics. However,
I also do not agree with the idea that it is purely a choice. The idea
that homosexuality is a conscious choice made in defiance of established
morality or through some strange mechanism of infection has no basis in
science and *is* lies spread by the religious right and its allies.

Many people have thought that homosexuality is a choice, and not all of them
were part of the 'religious right.' Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, the
famous existentialist, thought that homosexuality was a choice. You should
read his brilliant book Saint Genet.

Jean-Paul Sartre is not well-known for research into psychology in
general and psychology of sexual orientation. You are grasping at
straws.

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a simple issue, but some scientists are
simple people.

Perhaps. Have any examples?

Yes - Dean Hamer, Simon LeVay, and Michael Bailey. I think they are
lousy, self-deluded, second-rate or worse thinkers about sexuality.

These are your opinions, based on no objective analysis of their work.

I've read enough of it to have an opinion. LeVay's book Queer Science, which
Bailey praised, is useful in its account of purely factual matters, but I
find his evaluation and interpretation of them often questionable and
disingenuous.

It is ironic that your description of these people pretty much matches
my analysis of your thinking on sexuality. You appear to base your ideas
on some (fundamentally flawed) philosophy of choice.

How would you know it was flawed?

Not "how do you know" or "why do you believe", but "how would you know"?
In other words, what qualifications do I have to make judgments about
the soundness of your philosophy? Mostly for reasons I've outlined in
other discussions: you simplify too much about human thinking, emotions,
and choice.

Despite ample
evidence that they are different, you conflate sexual desires and
conscious wants into a simplistic view that supports your philosophy.

Please remember, each time you make that argument, that nothing can be a
choice if our desires aren't choices.

They're not.

You ignore any evidence that does not support your thinking and you
latch onto any notions that appear to support you, no matter how
unsupported, ill-conceived, psychologically harmful, or even, after
analysis, contrary to your own beliefs. In summary, you are demonstrably
a "lousy, self-deluded, second-rate or worse thinkers about sexuality".

The lack of a response is noted.

I'm responding now.

You ignore any evidence that does not support your thinking and you
latch onto any notions that appear to support you, no matter how
unsupported, ill-conceived, psychologically harmful, or even, after
analysis, contrary to your own beliefs. In summary, you are demonstrably
"lousy, self-deluded, second-rate or worse thinkers about sexuality".

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com

.

Loading