I’ve posted this here because I feel that there are straight (no pun intended) answers to the questions. Please feel free to move it though.
Okay, so I’ve just started to get involved in my first discussion with (to me) rabidly homophobic people. It started on the subject of gay marriage and it’s spiraling into, “It’s a disease that can be cured.” As I’m a pretty laissez-faire live-and-let-live person regarding homosexuality, I have no idea what the correct answers are for these sorts of questions. I did search the boards, but the only stuff I could find was in Great Debates and the OP poster was banned, so I didn’t bother pursing it.
I know that this might look a bit like getting someone to do my own homework for me, but it’s more a case of wanting to present credible answers that reference to impartial and scientific evidence rather than the partisan sites. Plus a little easy learning .
Items that have arisen:
It’s a psychic [sic] disorder. There was, “a mental institution in Oregon that specialized in “healing” homosexuals. Come to find out it really worked, until civil liberty unions stepped in and said that it was a discrimination. Although the institution discovered that it was truly a disorder in the fact that it could be healed and prevented.” What’s the accepted medical opinion on the reasons for homosexual behaviour? Was there such an institution?
Most homosexuals are male. No real point behind this one, but I’m interested to know if it’s generally true.
“We don’t see nature perverting (look up definition of perversion) itself do we? Do we see male or female black widows going at it with their own gender? Or how about great white sharks? Or even dolphins? This goes against the laws of nature itself. (I hope someone puts down dogs as an example to hopefully contradict this past statement).” My first thought was dogs - I wonder what his response would be? Anyway, bonobos are probably a better comparison to humans than spiders are, and AFAIK they’re always up for hot monkey sex with anyone. I assume that his counter would be that such sex arises from base, animal dominance games (that sounds like a lot of human hetero sex to me )
“Leviticus 18:22. A man is not to lie with a man as with a woman; this is an abomination. Now since we know that God thinks that the act of homosexuality is vile . . .” This is the key one (not that it actually affect an atheist like me). So what’s the biblical situation? I have to admit that I always assumed that a literal interpretation of the bible would tend to condemn homosexuality (at least amogst men), but I assume that there is some room for interpretation otherwise we wouldn’t have gay priests.
I’d ask for some further details on the mental institution that claimed a cure; AFAIK, efforts to ‘cure’ homosexuality fall broadly into two catagories:
-Those that involve physical and psychological torture and typically end up discharging a patient that is indeed averse to homosexual acts, but is also seriously disfuctional in many other ways.
-Those that are primarily religious in motivation and (in my opinion) simply drive the ‘patient’ into denial; actually, these aren’t all that different from the other sort. One notable example is (IIRC) an organisation called ‘Ex-Gay Ministries’, the religious founders of which have themselves returned to homosexuality.
I think anyone claiming it is a disease should be able to provide rigorous scientific evidence of the cause.
Homosexual behaviour has actually been observed in animals and is not rare, even in the wild (a stock objection to a statement without this qualifier is to argue that zoos are stressful and cause homosexual behaviour).
And on the Leviticus thing, I’d be inclined to read a few chapters around the quoted verse and ask why other prohibited activities are not the focus of equal attention.
ISTR that biologists are finding out the sexual orientation and gender identity are determined largely by how one’s brain is structured. If this is the case, then some one is actually born gay or transgendered.
My question is, if these studies pan out, why is being born (or made by God, if you will) with particular preferences an abomination?
Sorry, I have no cite, I st heard it on NPR a couple of months ago.
There is no general medical consensus on the “cause” of homosexuality. Best guess is that it’s a combination of genetic and environmental factors. There have been studies which have identified physical features of gay men which are different from those of straight men (most famously the “gay brain” study by Simon LeVay) and citing differences between lesbians and staright women (notably one involving finger length) but none of them are conclusive. There have also been findings of genetic commonalities among gay men but nothing conclusive and the results are controversial. A gay man is more likely than a straight man to have a gay brother, which may indicate some genetic basis.
The position of every reputable mental health and medical association in the United States is that there is no evidence that “reparative therapy” works and that such therapy may be harmful to the recipient. The APA removed homosexuality from it list of mental illnesses in 1973.
While there will probably never be a completely reliable count of homosexuals, most counts tend to find a higher percentage of men self-identifying as gay than women. Usually about 2 to 1. Whether that means more men than women are gay or if there are other factors at work is unknown.
The book Biological Exuberance is a fairly exhaustive catalog of species in which “homosexual behaviour” has been observed. It occurs in every kind of non-human animal from insect to mammal. There was recently a story about a pair of male penguins who pair-bonded and “adopted” an egg.
The Bible is a work of fiction and has no bearing on science. Even were we to take the verse at face value, there are dozens of other Levitical laws to which no attention is paid by the majority of those who hold that particular slam verse dear. If your acquaintances eat pork or wear poly-cotton blends, they are in violation of Leviticus.
First of all, everything Otto said. Second, here’s a massive Pit thread from long ago, now locked, which discusses the same kind of questions you’re asking, and degenerates into the kind of stuff these debates usually do. It’s long, but some really smart posters gave some really good arguments in it, and as an added bonus, you can watch the evolution of a homophobe’s argument from innocuous curiousity to “they’re all child molesters.” Just so you’re prepared, you know.
Honestly, the best advice I can give you in a situation like this is prepare to be frustrated. You can come up with answers to the four questions you posted, and they can be logically sound answers, but in my experience, you’re not likely to change any minds, particularly if, like you say, the other party is rabid in their “opposition.” That’s not to say you should quit and never try to fight the good fight, but I’ve had many arguments that started the way you’ve described your encounter thus far, and they usually don’t end in anything but mutual disgust. There’s a fair chance that you’ll provide reasonable counters to each of those four items, and the other party will come back with "I’ll say it again, it’s just not natural. (That’s a direct quote which ended my last such “discussion”). Ignorance and bigotry do not go gentle into that good night. Maybe the people you’re talking about it with are different, so give it a shot. Just don’t be surprised if they’re not really listening.
I always attributed scriptures like this as advice to people who are SINGLE and virgins. That sleeping around and having sex before marriage is a SIN. Yet if you’re married man to woman or man to man. It would be ok, just as long as your marriage is committed to one another.
The bible has been rewritten so many times and translated to the ideas of that time that I can see how the original intent could be misinterpret(sp?). Whats the possibility of the actual scripture being something like “Levitius 18:22. A man is not to lie with a man as with a woman, unless he is betrothed to him, as with a woman;…” yadda yadda yadda…
Just a comment on this. Unless your definition of “gay” and “homosexuality” includes the necessity of the person having had gay sex (and I was just dicussing this with someone whose does), you can certainly have gay celibate priests without violating the stricture above. The Bible warns against straight sex outside of marriage but presumably there are straight priests; it’s the action not the orientation that is proscribed.
Bromley, the people you’re arguing with are also likely to assert that all or most child molesters are gay, based on the fact that a lot of child molestation is men molesting boys. This isn’t true either. More child molesters are heterosexual in their adult relationships than homosexual.
Although I find that this tends to make people mad at me, I like to think that this “instruction” from God (though I’m an athiest) was actually more along the lines of sexual position advice…I mean, CLEARLY front-to-front just doesn’t work as well, right?
The rather obvious counterargument to this is that human beings do many things we do not see in nature. For instance, animals do not go to church or worship God. Don’t see that in nature, do ya?
You also do not see animals engaging in any activity even remotely similar to art or music. You don’t see animals reading books, going to college, driving cars (except for Toonces) or watching sports on television. Humans behave differently from animals in many respects. That’s why we’re running the planet.
The Talmudic Rabbis derive from the phrasing of this verse (which describes homosexual sex as “the layings of a woman”) that for any Biblical rules that involve sex (e.g., injunctions against incest and adultery, or the positive commandment that a brother-in-law marry the wife of his deceased childless brother), anal sex has the same status (for better or for worse, depending on the application, see parenthetical note above) as vaginal sex.
Thanks everyone. I was a little concerned that there might be a lot of research on it being a disorder, but the APA solved that nicely (and can it be a coincidence that it happened in '73 - I think not! ).
I also didn’t want to just say that the bible was a work of fiction etc. That happens to be what I believe, but I can’t see that convincing him . Nice spot on the mixed-fibres thing. I suspect that he can come back on the dietary restrictions with the later relaxation superseding it, but AFAIK the mixed-fibres item was never superseded (might be wrong though).
Btw, the religioustolerance.org article on Lev 18:22 might be of interest to people. Basically, lesbians are in the clear .
Homosexuality used to be classified as a mental illness. It’s probably not now because of political pressure. This is an opinion of course.
Here’s a good analogy: I have bad eyesight, and therefore I’m defective. It doesn’t cause problems for people. Homosexuals are defective, and it doesn’t cause problems for people per se. So what’s the difference? Okay, I can correct my vision with glasses (I do), but I’m still defective. Homosexuals can still be in love with women, but they don’t want to, and remain defective.
Of course now I’m going to be attacked for using the word “defective,” even though I’m not attacking anyone and have clearly stated that homosexuality doesn’t cause problems per se. See? People get touchy over accurate words that don’t describe their political orientation. The problem with homosexuals so much isn’t their orientation, but the politics of it.
I have to wonder, is it some sort of martyr complex which led you to shit all over this thread? You post something expecting to be attacked for it. Will it disappoint you if you’re not? Defect:
Homosexuality is not a defect. Whether the removal of homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM was politically motivated or not is irrelevant. The correct decision, since homosexuals are as fully able to function as heterosexuals, was to remove the diagnosis. Homosexuality is not a disease or a mental illness.
I suggest the next time you wish to spout this particular line you take it to the Pit with the rest of the slime.
Not trying to start a GD here or anything, but just about every “preference” we have has a genetic component. A genetic preference for crab legs/bacon/etc. doesn’t invalidate the idea of Judiasm. IIRC Catholicism does acknowledge the genetic components to homosexuality, it’s just the behavior that needs to be abstained from. Whether that’s a good idea, and whether the New Testament actually forbids homosexuality (rather than Levictus being simply part of the Old Convenant that was replaced by Jesus), is up to debate.
And I’m bailing out before I get any deeper in it. shrugs
They “don’t want to”? That’s pretty absurd. I mean, I’m a guy, and I am incapable of being in love with another guy in the romantic sense. It has nothing to do with whether I “want to” or not. The same applies to homosexuals.
No, I don’t see. Homosexuality differs from the norm, yes. But “defective”? It’s no more defective than being left handed or short. Both differ from the norm, but neither are defective.
IMHO homosexuality is like smoking or drinking. Anyone can say anything about it but it still be wrong. Years ago tobacco wasn’t socially accepted but now it is, does it make it healthy? The same happend with alcohol, it was once illegal to drink alcohol, now it isn’t , does it make it healthy? From the very begining of human history homosexuality has been considered wrong, an abomination, a disease or anything like that, but now it has became more and more acceptable and maybe soon homosexual marriage will be legal, would it change the nature of homosexuality?
.
)