- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,827
- Reaction score
- 409
- Location
- Humble Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I wouldn't exactly call "mental health professionals" (i.e. practitioners) experts on scientific matters -- though clergy are even less so.They do not compute that the majority of mental health care professionals in this country and elsewhere have discredited 'psychological' explanations for sexuality.
I wouldn't exactly call "mental health professionals" (i.e. practitioners) experts on scientific matters -- though clergy are even less so.
Hatuey said:They do not compute that the majority of mental health care professionals in this country and elsewhere have discredited 'psychological' explanations for sexuality.
Apologies. In the sentence before you said:Only that is not what I said. Read what I actually said:
Nothing to do with science. Mental health professionals have DISCREDITED - PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS for homosexuality.
I have encountered in this forum and elsewhere are completely ignorant of the role science has played in deciphering sexuality.
Without science, their opinion is no better than that of the clergyman. Whether there is something "wrong" is more of a societal decision.In other words, people who are experts in mental health have found that a person being a homosexual, heterosexual etc has little to do with their mental health. There is nothing mentally wrong with a person who is gay. It's not a decease.
Without science, their opinion is no better than that of the clergyman. Whether there is something "wrong" is more of a societal decision.
Apologies. In the sentence before you said:
Without science, their opinion is no better than that of the clergyman. Whether there is something "wrong" is more of a societal decision.
This is simply more proof of why debating sexuality with most religious people is like debating how The Sacrament of the Last Supper was painted with a blind man. Why is it we are debating the origins of heterosexuality, homosexuality etc. with these people? The majority of clergymen, pastors, evangelicals, Catholics, etc. I have encountered in this forum and elsewhere are completely ignorant of the role science has played in deciphering sexuality. They do not compute that the majority of mental health care professionals in this country and elsewhere have discredited 'psychological' explanations for sexuality. But yet those who follow these men are the people who we are forced to have 150 page debates with over what 'sexual stimuli' are and the numerous studies demonstrating the complexity of sexuality in general.
Its always humorous for the far left nutballs to claim people don't understand science when they can't even point to science to explain homosexual behavior. In fact the opposite is true.
While this is true, it also doesn't discredit the original statement. Science does not know why some people are gay and some aren't. Probably not too concerned about it. But the original statement is one based on observation and data. There is no observed correlation or causation between sexuality and personal psychology.
Its always humorous for the far left nutballs to claim people don't understand science when they can't even point to science to explain homosexual behavior. In fact the opposite is true.
However, empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.
The foregoing should not be construed as an argument that sexual minority individuals are free from mental illness and psychological distress. Indeed, given the stresses created by sexual stigma and prejudice, it would be surprising if some of them did not manifest psychological problems (Meyer, 2003). The data from some studies suggest that, although most sexual minority individuals are well adjusted, nonheterosexuals may be at somewhat heightened risk for depression, anxiety, and related problems, compared to exclusive heterosexuals (Cochran & Mays, 2006).
Unfortunately, because of the way they were originally designed, most of these studies do not yield information about whether and to what extent such risks might be greater for various subgroups within the sexual minority population (e.g., individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual versus those who do not; bisexuals versus lesbians and gay men). In future research, it will be important to compare different sexual minority groups in order to understand how so many individuals withstand the stresses imposed by sexual prejudice, and to identify effective strategies for treating those with psychological problems.
The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the "gay" genetic factors in circulation.
The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.
"We have finally solved this paradox," says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. "The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females."
Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population.
A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.
A study of gay sheep appears to confirm the controversial suggestion that there is a biological basis for sexual preference.
The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes.
Kay Larkin and colleagues from Oregon Health and Science University found the difference was in a particular region of the hypothalamus - the preoptic nucleus. The region is generally almost twice as large in rams as in ewes. But in gay rams its size was almost identical to that in "straight" females.
The hypothalamus is known to control sex hormone release and many types of sexual behaviour. Several other parts of the hypothalamus showed consistent sex differences in size, but only this specific region showed differences that correlated with sexual preference.
But when Roger Gorski tells them that their sons have inherited "an immutable, behaviourally expressed, bimodal trait" rather like left-handedness, homosexuality assumes a whole new mantle of respectability.
"I recently spoke at a seminar for Mormon parents of gay children in Salt Lake City and it was amazing," says Gorski. "I felt like I was talking in a vacuum, with every word sucked up. It was the parents who were coming out."
Few people can have missed the claim by American researchers that they have identified a portion (called Xq28) of the X-chromosome which appears to predispose men to a 'male sexual orientation' (see This Week). The identification of the maternally inherited 'gay gene' has probably attracted more column inches than any scientific announcement so far this decade. Even gay rights groups have given the discovery a warm welcome because it supports their long-held view that sexual orientation is not just a matter of choice but has its roots in biology - one Washington DC gay book shop is already selling a T-shirt with the legend: 'Xq28, Thanks Mom'.
A group of American researchers stepped into a political and ethical minefield last week when they reported new evidence that some men may have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. In a paper published in Science, molecular biologist Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, took the unusual step of warning against the 'fundamentally unethical' use of such research to 'assess and alter' a 'normal variation in human behaviour'.
The scientists believe they have found a link between sexual orientation and a small region on the X chromosome, the chromosome which men inherit from their mothers. 'This study looks pretty solid,' said Francis Collins, director of the National Center for Human Genome Research. 'Even so, it is extremely important to have it reproduced.'
They judge those observations against societally-determined criteria of what makes something "wrong".It is science, it's observation which the medical health professionals base their conclusions on. They see a lot of people, mentally sick to mentally healthy. They can make correlations from the data they observe. What they have observed is that sexuality is independent of psychology.
And what are these "studies" if not science?Actually it is better than a clergyman. Their studies in their field determines what something is not.
This is one of the more outlandish statements from you that I have seen. Not only can't you prove it within the forum, you can't even say it about most of those outside the forum...even in your personal encounters.This is simply more proof of why debating sexuality with most religious people is like debating how The Sacrament of the Last Supper was painted with a blind man. Why is it we are debating the origins of heterosexuality, homosexuality etc. with these people? The majority of clergymen, pastors, evangelicals, Catholics, etc. I have encountered in this forum and elsewhere are completely ignorant of the role science has played in deciphering sexuality. They do not compute that the majority of mental health care professionals in this country and elsewhere have discredited 'psychological' explanations for sexuality. But yet those who follow these men are the people who we are forced to have 150 page debates with over what 'sexual stimuli' are and the numerous studies demonstrating the complexity of sexuality in general.
This is one of the more outlandish statements from you that I have seen. Not only can't you prove it within the forum, you can't even say it about most of those outside the forum...even in your personal encounters.
As though chance would have it that you meet so many that are ignorant of science.
Ridiculous!
Sigh. And so it begins:
Homosexuality and Mental Health
Twin Studies of Homosexuality
Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained - life - 13 October 2004 - New Scientist
Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist
Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep study - 05 November 2002 - New Scientist
The big brother effect - 29 March 2003 - New Scientist
Comment: A gene for our times? - 24 July 1993 - New Scientist
Gene hunters sound warning over gay link - 24 July 1993 - New Scientist
Are you even serious? SERIOUSLY? Now I welcome you to provide scientific evidence that homosexual is some sort of mental illness or not related to genetics in any way.
hahahhaha
Despite all your claims nothing you linked to changes the facts.
Rant and rave all you like Hatuey, theories are not facts
Your surrender is accepted. When you can provide evidence disputing the evidence, I welcome you to. :2wave:
I already have, multiple times.
You show me even one of your links claiming a homosexual genetic link that was even found in 70% of the people tested and I'll shut up.
Go ahead. I'll wait
Biological sexual reactions are purely preparation for heterosexual sex. No matter how much the pro gay marriage group screams and cries the biological sexual reaction does not change for hetero or homosexual people. Men still produce and ejaculate sperm and women still divert blood to the uterus in anticipation for conception. These are measured and rock solid constants yet despite the evidence the religion of "homosexuality must be genetic" never ceases to draw new members to its flock based purely on faith alone.
Are you even serious? SERIOUSLY? Now I welcome you to provide scientific evidence that homosexual is some sort of mental illness or not related to genetics in any way.
What does any of that have to do with who someone finds sexually appealing?