Homosexuality

[ssj_man2k]

I was just wondering if there was scientific evidence that being gay is a sickness or illness.

the reason i ask this is that whenever someone says being gay is wrong, they relate it to religion or the bible. They can never present scientific evidence of it being wrong. And when i say that not everyone beleives in the bible or in their religion, they just laugh.

This also brings up another question. Why doesn't the government recognize a homosexual union?

[SPOOFE]

I was just wondering if there was scientific evidence that being gay is a sickness or illness.
Only if you also consider hair color and the shape of your nose to be a sickness or illness.

the reason i ask this is that whenever someone says being gay is wrong, they relate it to religion or the bible.
Well, the proper counter to those types of arguments is to mention all the "Love thy neighbor" verses. There's like, what, two verses in the Bible that refer to homosexuality specifically ("A man laying with another man as he would a woman" or something like that?).

They can never present scientific evidence of it being wrong.
That's because there never IS evidence to support opinions.

And when i say that not everyone beleives in the bible or in their religion, they just laugh.
Laugh right back at them (note: I said "at", not "with").

This also brings up another question. Why doesn't the government recognize a homosexual union?
Because there's still enough Ignorant dickheads running around out there. Give it time, give it time... they'll be defeated eventually. The good guys always win.

Remember: Rome wasn't built in a day... but when it was finished, it DID support homosexuality.

[ssj_man2k]

Thanx spoofe.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by ssj_man2k
They can never present scientific evidence of it being wrong.

Science doesn't tend to deal with concepts like 'Right' and 'Wrong' (at least not in a moral sense), rather concepts such as 'True' or 'False'.

So "Is homosexuality wrong" isn't something that can be answered by a scientist in the same way that "Is it true that homosexuals all have red hair" can.

[Esprix]

For further reading, feel free to click on any of the links in my signature line.

Esprix

[Gaspode]

Only if you also consider hair color and the shape of your nose to be a sickness or illness.

Spoofe you appear to be implying here that homosexuality is genetic, like hair colour. While this is conceivably true the evidence is, to say the least, inconclusive. Perhaps a better example would be "only if you consider height a sickness'. While homosexuality is a choice for only a minority it, like height, is in most cases probably the result of a combination of environmental and genetic factors.

I suppose that if there were evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality then you could argue that it is an ilness. Why you'd want to I don't quite know.

They can never present scientific evidence of it being wrong.
Like Mangetout said, science doesn't deal in right and wrong.
Follow Esprix's links, however, you'll see people attempting to present sociological/epidemiological arguments that it's 'wrong' in the sense that it causes disease or something.

And when i say that not everyone beleives in the bible or in their religion, they just laugh.
These folks must absolutely crack up at other obvious truths. Try "The sky is blue", see if that gets a chuckle.
But seriously, never give up fighting the good fight just because a couple of bible-thumpers laugh at you.

whenever someone says being gay is wrong, they relate it to religion or the bible.
Well, I suppose that if you're going to use concepts like 'right' and 'wrong' that's the best place to look. Doesn't make it the truth though does it.

[ssj_man2k]

could you possibly give me a link for those arguments? I don't feel like sacrificing my eyes to sift through all those posts.

And just a question. How do gay guys know that other guys are gay, like in school in stuff. Im still in high school, but im very masculine and i don't think anyone has a doubt in their mind that im straight, eventough i'm gay. Anyone got advice for this?

[matt_mcl]

Well, there's the "I see your nifty rainbow accessories so I know you're queer" manoeuvre. And it's generally safe to assume that the guy you danced with for an hour at that nightspot in the Village isn't referring to his female lover when he talks about his best girlfriend.

Further, a - how shall I say - guy who is openly femme is fairly likely to be gay, although the reverse is certainly not true. (Nor is this rule itself foolproof, much to my chagrin; sometimes it seems that the harder I fall for some delicious femme boy the more likely it is that he's straight as a line. But very supportive, of course.)

But in general, there's no way to tell. To paraphrase a lesbian comedian, we're like Stealth Homos, low-flying and undetectable. Unless someone actually comes out to you, there's no way to be sure.

As you are in high school, I'd excercise especial caution. If I remember correctly, those HS boys can be vicious.

[SPOOFE]

Spoofe you appear to be implying here that homosexuality is genetic, like hair colour. While this is conceivably true the evidence is, to say the least, inconclusive.
Perhaps. Allow me to revise my example to include such things as "dislike for sitcoms" and "a taste for salmon". The point was pretty much what Mangetout said... science doesn't show "right" or "wrong".

I suppose that if there were evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality then you could argue that it is an ilness.
Well, not necessarily. Mental disorders are considered illnesses (are they?). It can be argued - if one was so inclined (I certainly am not) - that homosexuality is merely a mental disorder. I don't agree with that line of reasoning, since, using that same logic, it can be argued that any sort of sexual appetite, or Love itself, is merely a mental disorder. And I'm not that cynical yet.

[Baraqiyal]

Studies done with identical twins separated at birth have shown that homosexuality is approximately 50 percent genetic and 50 percent environmental. Here's a link (http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/deanfulltexttopics.cfm?id=13339).

[Odesio]

Originally posted by ssj_man2k
I was just wondering if there was scientific evidence that being gay is a sickness or illness.

the reason i ask this is that whenever someone says being gay is wrong, they relate it to religion or the bible. They can never present scientific evidence of it being wrong. And when i say that not everyone beleives in the bible or in their religion, they just laugh.


Ask them why it is wrong? And it has to be something more concrete then because the bible says so or that is isn't "right." Being gay doesn't hurt others or violate their rights, so what's morally wrong about it? Nothing.


This also brings up another question. Why doesn't the government recognize a homosexual union?

One reason is because marriage has always been a union between man and woman. I suppose there might be exceptions to this rule but I can't recall any society that had marriages between same sex couples. Of course I think the government should recognize same sex unions the same way they recognize heterosexual unions. But I have to admit that in my mind when I think of marriage it'll always be a heterosexual couple I picture.

Marc

[F-Dutchman]

I thought that under the law of Hawaii same sex marriage was possible?

In the wake of warnings of the European court of Justice whereby the judges warned that they might be inclined to view that not allowing same sex marriage might be an infringement of the human right to a family life, the Dutch government has now removed those barriers.

I tried to find some links to government sites in English but I couldn't.

[Otto]

MGibson writes One reason is because marriage has always been a union between man and woman. I suppose there might be exceptions to this rule but I can't recall any society that had marriages between same sex couples.

Eskridge (can't remember 1st name) in his book "The Case for Same-Sex Marriage" notes several societies with same-sex unions. I'm at work so I don't have the book in front of me, so I'll take a look at it when I get home. John Boswell's controversial book "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" purports to list reconstructed texts of same-sex marriage ceremonies performed by the Catholic Church centuries ago.

The Netherlands has granted full marriage rights to same-sex couples. Other European countries have granted same-sex couples many of the rights and privileges of marriage but don't call it "marriage." The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the denial of marital benefits to same-sex couples violates that country's constitution. I think same-sex relationships have the status of common-law marriages but I'd have to research it. In the United States, a number of cities and counties have domestic partnership registries but the benefits available to domestic partners vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Vermont is the only state which has "civil unions," which supposedly grant to same-sex couples all of the state-sanctioned rights, responsibilities and privileges of marriage without actually calling it marriage. There are a number of court cases in progress now which will test the recognition of various aspects of civil union outside the state.

[Otto]

Sorry, meant to answer this in one post.

F-Dutchman writes
I thought that under the law of Hawaii same sex marriage was possible?

The Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was a violation of the state constitution's equal rights amendment, which banned discrimination on the basis of sex. The court sent the issue back to the trial court to determine whether the state could put forth a compelling state interest in denying the licenses. The trial court ruled that the state's stated interests (strengthening marriage, protecting children, bolstering the state's reputation among other states and protecting tourism, among others) were not only not compelling but would actually be enhanced by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state appealed to the supreme court. In the interim, the voters passed a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. The supreme court ruled (just ten days before the Vermont ruling) that the new amendment trumped the previous rulings and mooted the issue of marriage license issuance. The court did not, however, foreclose the possibility of a Vermont-like solution, as it ruled that denial of marital rights might still violate the constitution.

[IzzyR]

Whether being gay is a sickness is completely independent (from a factual standpoint) from whether it is morally wrong.

The first probably depends on definitions of sickness, the latter on moral and religious beliefs.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by ssj_man2k

And just a question. How do gay guys know that other guys are gay, like in school in stuff. Im still in high school, but im very masculine and i don't think anyone has a doubt in their mind that im straight, eventough i'm gay. Anyone got advice for this?

Despite what some people claim, GAYDAR is not 100% accurate. I don't think I've ever gotten a false positive, but I have often failed to realize that someone was gay until they said they were. So, if you really want someone to know you're gay, just say so. There isn't a secret handshake or anything*.

If one gay person does identify another without being told it's usually because 1) the other person was wearing Freedom Rings or some other gay gear 2) the other person looked or behaved in a stereotypically gay manner or 3) the other person was checking out or flirting with a member of the same sex. Of course, if you're at a gay bar or marching in a Pride Parade then it's a pretty safe bet that anyone you meet is gay, even if you don't notice any of the above signs. :)


*At least, there'd better not be...no one ever showed it to me!

[Dangerosa]

Originally posted by Lamia
Of course, if you're at a gay bar or marching in a Pride Parade then it's a pretty safe bet that anyone you meet is gay, even if you don't notice any of the above signs. :)
[/B]

Well, I'm straight, and I've been to gay bars and marched in gay pride parades. But it is safe to assume anyone in either of those places is supportive of you being gay - and probably fairly safe to assume they expect you to assume they are gay.

(P.S. Don't proposition anyone's "recently converted to gay is ok status" Dad uncomfortably marching in the PFLAG contingent)

[erislover]

Wait, doesn't Vermont recognize same sex marriages?

What never ceases to amaze me is how this isn't discrimination through denying services to people based on sexual orientation. I hardly expect the entire country's opinion to suddenly promote open homosexuality (unfortunately that still seems a ways off) but how have we failed to recognize same-sex marriages and such? Isn't this a federal issue?

[erislover]

Originally posted by erislover
<snip>
Duh. Thanks otto. Good info.

[andros]

Wait, doesn't Vermont recognize same sex marriages?

Not exactly. The "civil unions" approved in Vt. have something of a separate but equal going.

[andros]

Oops. I suck too. Sorry, Otto.

[Sterra]

a - how shall I say - guy who is openly femme is fairly likely to be gay

Where do you get this from?:)

[SPOOFE]

I suppose there might be exceptions to this rule but I can't recall any society that had marriages between same sex couples.
I don't know if they commonly had same-sex marriages, but the ancient Romans believed that a man could only truly love another man. In fact, it wasn't until Christianity became widespread that Rome fell... hmm... :D

[Odesio]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
I suppose there might be exceptions to this rule but I can't recall any society that had marriages between same sex couples.
I don't know if they commonly had same-sex marriages, but the ancient Romans believed that a man could only truly love another man. In fact, it wasn't until Christianity became widespread that Rome fell... hmm... :D

That's because in Roman eyes a woman was a lower form of life. The love between men didn't necessarily have to be sexual in nature but it would still be superior to the love of a woman.

Marc

[Guinastasia]

Um, I worked with a guy once who was incredibly femme-high lispy voice, limp wrists, tall and skinny, etc etc.

But he wasn't gay. Turns out, his dad died when he was two, and he had two older sisters and one younger sister-he had grown up around females his entire life, with no male role models, and just naturally tended to be a little on the femme side. Either way, he was a really cool guy.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by MGibson

That's because in Roman eyes a woman was a lower form of life. The love between men didn't necessarily have to be sexual in nature but it would still be superior to the love of a woman.

Marc

Well, and also, a distinction needs to be made between Republican Rome and Imperial Rome, especially later Imperial Rome...while, later in its history, homosexuality was more commonly accepted, Republican Rome, for the most part condemned it, and in fact, it was punishable by death in the legions.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

Originally posted by ssj_man2k


And just a question. How do gay guys know that other guys are gay, like in school in stuff. Im still in high school, but im very masculine and i don't think anyone has a doubt in their mind that im straight, eventough i'm gay. Anyone got advice for this?

Well, speaking strictly for myself, you gave me the distinct impression you were straight in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=71983) when you said "And i wouldn't mind having some lesbian action in my yearbook, either..." among other things. I thought only straight guys got turned on by lesbians. Tho perhaps I am wrong about this...hmmm...where's that "Ask a Gay Guy" thread when you need it? :D

[Arnold Winkelried]

When once discussing the issue of gay rights with someone, the point was raised that "being gay means you won't reproduce, so it's an evolutionary dead end."
To which I responded:
a) I thought you refused to accept the theory of evolution? (haha, cheap shot but it worked - not really relevant to this discussion)
b) Just because something is an evolutionary dead end doesn't mean it's "wrong". Evolution has no moral aspect, it is just an aspect of the existence of organic lifeforms.
c) Just because the characteristic of a particular individual does not serve passing on of its genes, doesn't mean that the characteristic doesn't serve the species as a whole. The only example that came to mind: With hive insects, many of the workers are sterile.

Any comments from the bright minds at the SDMB?

[Lamia]

Originally posted by Dangerosa
Originally posted by Lamia
Of course, if you're at a gay bar or marching in a Pride Parade then it's a pretty safe bet that anyone you meet is gay, even if you don't notice any of the above signs. :)


Well, I'm straight, and I've been to gay bars and marched in gay pride parades. But it is safe to assume anyone in either of those places is supportive of you being gay - and probably fairly safe to assume they expect you to assume they are gay.
[/B]

True. I should have clarified that while you'd be likely to win if it were a bet, it's not a sure thing that anyone at a gay bar or in a pride parade is gay. I have seen straight people in gay bars, I've even seen straight couples. Heck, I know a woman who went to a gay bar and was disappointed that not one man hit on her all night! And yes, she did know it was a gay bar. :)

[Mangetout]

Good points [b]Arnold[B]

I can't lay claim to the title 'bright mind' but if homosexuality does have a genetic aspect, it would seem that it's not an inherited one. Makes me wonder whether it was always there (kind of built in somehow) but the environment was less than ideal for it to be expressed (that's changing now).

I was going to say (off the top of my head) that maybe it is an evolutionary thing; some sort of programming to bypass overpopulation without frustrating the needs of the individual (and thus maybe turning them into a threat), but I think this might be an unacceptable viewpoint and I wouldn't like to be made to defend it.

[Sterra]

[b]Arnold Winkelried[b] how often do gay people not reproduce compared to the average population? They like everyone else usually want children at some point in their lives. It may not be as easy for them to do it but they certainly can.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Sterra that's a good objection. In humans, we understand that sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex are the way (well, no longer the only way) to reproduce, so a gay person desirous of passing on his/her genes would engage in such an activity.

However, in the case of another species (let's take the duckbill platypus as an example), would ms. platypus have the understanding that it is necessary for her to engage in sexual relations with mr. platypus in order to reproduce? Or (assuming that the duckbill platypus has pleasure in the sex act, and assuming that some duckbill platypuses are gay), would a lesbian ms. platypus rebuff male advances, find pleasure with another lesbian platypus, and thus end up childless? As far as I know, pleasure in the sex act is an evolutionary trait to encourage members of a dual-sex species to pass on their genes.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by Mangetout
I was going to say (off the top of my head) that maybe it is an evolutionary thing; some sort of programming to bypass overpopulation without frustrating the needs of the individual (and thus maybe turning them into a threat), but I think this might be an unacceptable viewpoint and I wouldn't like to be made to defend it.

I think it's an evolutionary "thing" also, but my theory would be that it just happens as part of the "roll of the dice" that occurs during mitosis, not because there is any long-term or species-wide evolutionary advantage.

[Gaspode]

Any comments from the bright minds at the SDMB?

It's been done before Arnold (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=51723)

[MrVisible]

It seemed to me that in addition to a Great Debate, this thread had an IMHO discussion in it somewhere too.

So, I started one.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=79394

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
Originally posted by Mangetout
I was going to say (off the top of my head) that maybe it is an evolutionary thing...blah blah....

I think it's an evolutionary "thing" also, but my theory would be that it just happens as part of the "roll of the dice" that occurs during mitosis, not because there is any long-term or species-wide evolutionary advantage.

I was thinking maybe a completely random mutation might lie unexpressed in a certain population, but be absent in others, unexpressed that is, until triggered by crowd pressure; so the population with the mutation starts to include homosexual individuals, who, although fulfilled on a personal level, aren't escalating the crowding problem, meanwhile the other population (without the mutation) carries on merrily breeding until they are at the very limit of sustainability in their particular niche, then some fairly minor event can have a devastating effect on theor numbers, however, the population with the mutation is not so badly affected and the breeding individuals (who also carry the mutation) get to continue their particular strain. Very much like a hive thing.

As I said though, It's just a thought, maybe not a very good one.

[Theios]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried

c) Just because the characteristic of a particular individual does not serve passing on of its genes, doesn't mean that the characteristic doesn't serve the species as a whole. The only example that came to mind: With hive insects, many of the workers are sterile.

Any comments from the bright minds at the SDMB?



I think I remember a documentary on a species of Macaws (either scarlet or greenwing) where some of the sexually mature member chose not to breed. Instead, this species tended to form extended family groups to tend to the young of the members who did breed. So the non-breeding aunts and uncles weren't themselves breeding, but they were helping to continue the passing of thier genes by helping their sibling's offspring. (Did that make any sense?)

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Theios
I think I remember a documentary on a species of Macaws (either scarlet or greenwing) where some of the sexually mature member chose not to breed. Instead, this species tended to form extended family groups to tend to the young of the members who did breed. So the non-breeding aunts and uncles weren't themselves breeding, but they were helping to continue the passing of thier genes by helping their sibling's offspring. (Did that make any sense?)

I'd be most interested to see whether there's any statistical data to suggest that (human)homosexuals take more interest in the offspring of their close relatives.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by Mangetout

I'd be most interested to see whether there's any statistical data to suggest that (human)homosexuals take more interest in the offspring of their close relatives.

I think this would be a difficult study, because there are other factors involved. Perhaps Gay Uncle Bob really wants to be involved with the lives of his nieces and nephews, but his siblings think homosexuality is evil and don't want Bob anywhere near their kids.

[Mangetout]

Sure, in fact they might also see his increased interest as suspicious too; many people mentally (often without consciously doing so) aggregate homosexuals and child-molesters into one category 'perverts'

[Gaspode]

Originally posted by Theios
I think I remember a documentary on a species of Macaws (either scarlet or greenwing) where some of the sexually mature member chose not to breed.
This is actually quite common amongst birds. Australian magpies and kookaburras also practice this type of breeding. Amongst mammals naked mole rats actually have a system where one reprodcutive female sterilises the rest of the warren. Only when she dies does another female begin cycling, and this in turn sterilises all the rest.
In gorilla societies only the dominant one or two males breed, although the rest of the silverbacks defend the young and females.
So the idea that not reproducing amongst mammals must be a genetic disadvantage is obviously seriously flawed.

Originally posted by Mangetout
I'd be most interested to see whether there's any statistical data to suggest that (human)homosexuals take more interest in the offspring of their close relatives. [/B]

Well to have an evolutionary advantage they wouldn't actually need to. If they don't have children and because of this leave any property in their will to any relatives that gives an evolutionary advantage to those carrying their genes. All we'd need is statistics showing that homosexuals leave a greater percentage of property to relatives than straight people. I'd hazard a guess that this is so even given the families who disown homosexuals.

In ancient societies of course it would also be automatic. Even if not deliberate, in even a large hunter/gatherer tribe of 10 people a homosexual man who killed a deer wouldn't be able to eat it all and would share it with the tribe. Almost everyone in that tribe would be a relative with some shared genes. If he helped defend or attack in times of war he would also be inadvertantly helping his relatives. So the simple act of living would make a homosexual man an asset to the tribe and as such give the tribe an evolutionary advantage even if he never had children.
So long as any such benefits outweighed the obvious disadvantage of not having children homosexuality could be an evolutionary advantage. The fact that one man can impregnate numerous women means that so long as warfare was common and big game plentiful homosexuality was almost certainly an advantage to the tribe. It increases the hunting and military strength of society while at the same time limiting the amount of intra-tribal friction between males caused by competition over mates.
It may not be true but it seems like a logical case for the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality.

[bagkitty]

Putting on boxing gloves and preparing to fight ignorance.

Gods, isn't classical history a requirement anymore?

SPOOFE: the Romans (both in the Republican and Imperial periods) were extremely homophobic... lots of nasty legislation passed by the Senate making it a crime with rather, um, extreme penalties. Indeed, Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" goes on at great length about how the failure of the later Imperial period to enforce such legislation led to the downfall of the empire. The Romans (by and large) considered homosexuality effeminate and contrary to the masculine standards of their Republic. They thought of it as a "Greek" vice.

You are referring to some Greek philosophical debates over the nature of love when saying that the highest form of love was between two men (see particularly Plato's "Symposium"). Of course, this was the Greek elite talking, remember, only those with sufficient property were really part of the Greek democracy... slaves and women didn't count. And the actual physical expression of this was more akin to what we would consider pedophilia than sexual expression between consenting adults.

[Phoenix Dragon]

Originally posted by bagkitty
SPOOFE: the Romans (both in the Republican and Imperial periods) were extremely homophobic... lots of nasty legislation passed by the Senate making it a crime with rather, um, extreme penalties. Indeed, Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" goes on at great length about how the failure of the later Imperial period to enforce such legislation led to the downfall of the empire. The Romans (by and large) considered homosexuality effeminate and contrary to the masculine standards of their Republic.

Uh... You sure about that? Because every source I've found contradicts that. Especially the one that mentions that the Romans considered gay men to be the best for the legions, since they were found to fight better as a team.

Though I think the quote about "men could only truely love another man" did come from the greeks, not romans, but I'm not sure :)

[ssj_man2k]

I beleive alexander the great had alot of homosexuals in his army. That's part of why they did so well, because they weren't just fighing for their friends, but for their lovers.