Forums → WEPR → Neurology of gays
| 30 | 7021 |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
"A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual preference was set in the womb."
I think this proves it all. Gays have different patters in their brains. Being gay is not a choice. It's neurological.
- 30 Replies
PoeNoodles, Oh... and what is a "real" Christian?
Strop, what is your stance on personality traits in relation to homosexuals versus heterosexuals? I ask because that articles was saying homosexual brains of men are like heterosexual women and the other for homosexual women. I just find this off, for some reason.
And, on the first page - I don't remember who said it. But it was something along the lines of: "Some choose to be homosexual for a social status."
My response: WHAT FREAKING PLANET ARE YOU ON?
Strop, what is your stance on personality traits in relation to homosexuals versus heterosexuals? I ask because that articles was saying homosexual brains of men are like heterosexual women and the other for homosexual women. I just find this off, for some reason.
The association isn't causative, it's merely suggestive- but this is something that most people aren't going to recognise, and therefore use it to fallaciously validate their gender/sexuality confound, I know.
The findings are merely suggestive in that while there's a correlation, this could be for a number of reasons that indicate a greater complexity i.e. that's not the be-all and end-all of it- the total difference could be due to a host of smaller factors that add up.
However, I do hope that science recognises that we are merely dabbling around in mere beginnings of definitions of sexuality and that much of the leading in the work from decades ago still has not been integrated into research practice. The DSM-IV is terribly incomplete compared with modern-day rhetoric and awareness of various 'fetishes' (hopefully this term will also be one that is reexamined) such as one you mentioned earlier, zoophilia...things like these which Kinsey, in his population studies, found rather more prevalent than would be ordinarily thought, rate about half a sentence in the DSM, as being "rare", and a MEDLINE search of papers have express "a curiosity about this barely known behavior".
That just furthers my frustration with the DSM. I start back to grad school in the fall and I am still figuring out what I want to do with my Thesis. One day I am going to change the dreaded DSM-IV into DSM 5.0
@Poenoodles: What do you mean True Christians? I know they said that being gay is against the crime but that was put in their a long time ago. This was probably in the Dark Ages or before Christ. They are not as intelligent as us. I think Gays are okay and Gay marriage is too.
Being gay is a choice by the person. It is not something that can get a birth like a disease or something.
Being gay is a choice by the person
To be accurate, "being gay" is meaningless, because "being anything" other than "being" does not apply in a real sense.
"Identifying as being gay" is a choice by the person, technically speaking, though in some cases some options involve more repression than others. "Having homosexual tendencies" however is not so much a choice, because having tendencies is not a choice.
The comparison to a 'disease' or pathology is also bogus. We've already established that it wasn't to be considered one more than thirty years ago.
@ Asherlee:
Well, since the DSM is really meant to be a manual and clinical practice isn't supposed to be run by manuals so much as give you ideas about how to proceed, nobody's entirely happy with any version of the DSM that comes out...material's always being added towards the next edition.
But nonetheless,
One day I am going to change the dreaded DSM-IV into DSM 5.0
You and me both!
@ drakokirby:
know they said that being gay is against the crime but that was put in their a long time ago. This was probably in the Dark Ages or before Christ.
I've heard and read (but have yet to verify via academic source) that the whole same-sex didn't become a big deal until quite a while after death. Same-sex couples were actually fine in both the non-Christian and early Christian times (of Constantine). It wasn't until later, maybe even during the time of Augustine that altered attitudes were circulated throughout the Church, and therefore the Churchstate.
But don't quote me on that yet. I have to verify!
@d0m1nated14
Is it really a choice? Did you choose to be straight then? If it's a choice, could you then spontaneously choose to be gay?
And it was wonderful Augustine that linked Cain as to being the dirty Jew that killed the precious pre-christian-christian Abel.
*covers my nose*
Haha, I am pretty sure, Judaism wasn't a religion either XP
Also, have you noticed that you hear "dirty Jew," but have you ever heard of "dirty Christian?" Sorry to go off topic!
Just because you are born with something mental in some way...it is possible to fix with self-power and self-control. I may sound like I'm full of it and someone will definitely tell me "you can't fix sexual orientation if you are born that way...blah, blah, blah" but you can change...IT IS EXTREMELY HARD...but it is possible...you control your actions and your choices...you can change them. Some are just born with that extra challenge.
You know, you might be right Erako. But I still haven't seen any evidence or a convincing argument for compelling portions of the population to suppress/alter their homosexual tendencies. Arguments are more convincing (still fallacious) when some kind of a priori wrong e.g. deliberately and directly harming others is involved, but again, 'homosexuality' isn't one of them.
In fact, evidence shows a net harmful effect in posing this challenge to the homosexual population. We have already been witnessing the silent struggle of those who do not wish to acknowledge parts of their orientation because they, like you said, wish to succeed with this 'extra challenge', and in many cases it falls apart. More recently a resurgence of extremist conservatism among religious elements has seen the establishment of 'gay therapy' and the 'curing' of homosexuality which appears to generate more burden than it alleviates.
If you can believe that there's some kind of justification to perpetuate the trends here, I'd like to hear it, because frankly that'd be where I think you're full of it.
@Erako
I'm not sure what you mean by "extra challenge" as if being homosexual is a hurdle that one must overcome. Also, what do you know about changing one's sexual orientation? It has been proven that there are physical differences in homosexuals brains versus heterosexuals. Also following the very basic principal of psychology "everything psychological is physical" there is no escapaing being homosexual. Of course you can become a suppressed homosexual and lead a heterosexual life. But this does lead to many problems which shows that you can't change your sexuality.
Let me give you an example. The clergy in the Roman Catholic Church. It is common knowledge that they do not tolerate homosexuality, or excuse me, the homosexual act (because that makes sense,) so the clergy who do find themselves homosexual do try to supress their homosexuality by marrying (there was a time when clergy could marry) and having children, since they knew they would be persecuted for being who they are. Well since they do spend time with children educating them on the religion, their suppressed homosexualtiy comes out in a harmful and unhealthy way. Starting the stereotype about gays being rapists and child molesters, and further soiling the homosexual community when really if society and The Church could have just been accepting and open none of this would happen.
Not only what you have said shows your ignorance of the subject, but also lack of respect towards your fellow man.
You must be logged in to post a reply!