Are homosexuals born with this disorder or acquired?

[wynn]

If 'disorder' is not a nice sounding word and you don't want to label homosexuals as such, therefore I consider changing it with whatever term you would be more comfortable. I didn't mean to insult homosexuals.

It's not about "nice-sounding words", but accuracy and efficacy.

As for accuracy - I pm'd you my view on the matter, and I have pm'd it because I know how very controversial it is at most places.
Bottomline, I think it is necessary to look at the whole issue of illicit sex, not single out just one aspect of it.

As for efficacy - Calling people stupid, evil, wrong, disordered does not make them smart, good, right or healthy.
Using derogatory words just doesn't help.

Let me rephrase the question. Are homosexuals genetic or is formed in early childhood?

I think the answer to that question will have to consider the intention of the asker and the audience for a reply to it.

If what the asker is really after is to show the homosexuals the error of their ways, then the asker should make this clear, instead of trying to force (by means of scientific consensus) or manipulate (with indirect influence strategies) them into change.

 

[billvon]

Homosexuality on a small scale, poses no problem to the species since there is still plenty of genes for reproduction. But taken to the limit, it will violate one the prime directives.The homophobes become active in response to the surival of the species, acting as balancing agents, to maintain an do-able level of homosexality.

That assumes homophobes prevent homosexuality. That seems as likely as bigots preventing blacks.

 

[adoucette]

Mind Over Matter:

You keep referring to homosexuality as a "disorder". If you wish to keep using that term, I suggest you present some kind of argument showing how and why it is a "disorder". You are, after all, talking about as much as maybe 12.5% of the population.

Highly unlikely to be much more than 2%.

An estimated 1.7% Adults in the US identify themselves as lesbian or gay.
Another 1.8% (mostly women) consider themselves bi-sexual.

http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/How-many-people-are-LGBT-Final.pdf

Similarly the 2000 US census had 105.5 million households in the USA, but only 595,000 consist of same sex partners. Or about half of a percent.

The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center, which has been conducting scientifically designed surveys on homosexuality for close to 30 years found the percentage of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in the United States in 2008 was 2 percent. A number that has been stable since the late ‘80s, according to Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey at NORC

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/da...eral_social_survey.html#special_topic_modules

three-quarters of a million UK adults say they are gay, lesbian or bisexual - equivalent to 1.5% of the population, a survey suggests. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) says 480,000 (1%) consider themselves gay or lesbian, and 245,000 (0.5%) bisexual. (From Integrated Household Survey).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629

Etc

 

[wellwisher]

Is homophobia, in a fundamental way, similar to homosexuality? Although homophobiic behavior is more destructive to others, if we put aside this value judgement, and just look at the nature of compulsive and innate propensity, are these both cut from the same cloth, since both form abou the same time. (different faces of the same basic firmware phenomena)

The PC answer will be no, but PC means politically correct, while political means subjective using lies and spin. This is not the correct subjective spin, I admit that. But I was talking logic instead of appeal to emotions.

 

[spidergoat]

That assumes homophobes prevent homosexuality. That seems as likely as bigots preventing blacks.

Indeed. And since when do we have a problem with underpopulation?

 

[wellwisher]

Since the atheist, liberal PC spin, which is pro homosexuality, far more people have experimented with this behavior, including those who are not even homosexual.
Could the homophobes be a social way to counter PC type social manipulation, that can lead natural into what is unnatural to them, simply because the manipulation is done quite well.

 

[origin]

An interesting consideration are the so called homophobes. Is this behavior natural or programmed?

Homosexuality on a small scale, poses no problem to the species since there is still plenty of genes for reproduction. But taken to the limit, it will violate one the prime directives.The homophobes become active in response to the surival of the species, acting as balancing agents, to maintain an do-able level of homosexality.

So if gay men father children (like many do) and lesbians are insementated and raise children, or even if gay couples adopt children that unwanted, then that homophobes would just be ignorant, narrow minded, red neck, bigots.

 

[billvon]

Since the atheist, liberal PC spin, which is pro homosexuality

Probably true. The "atheist liberal PC spin" is also pro women's rights, pro minority rights, pro religious rights, pro workers rights etc etc. Does the liberal influence on society encourage people to consider other religions and types of work? Probably.

far more people have experimented with this behavior, including those who are not even homosexual.

Also probably true. (It should be noted that the opposite is even more true - a repressive society forces a great many gays to live a straight lifestyle, far more than would experiment voluntarily if they were free to do so.)

Could the homophobes be a social way to counter PC type social manipulation, that can lead natural into what is unnatural to them, simply because the manipulation is done quite well.

Most homophobes I know arrive at their bigotry out of ignorance. It's easy to hate someone who is some shadowy twisted deviant, never experienced directly; it's a lot harder to hate someone who is a good friend of yours who just came out of the closet.

Thus, I very much doubt there is an evolutionary component. (Although there is certainly a political one.)

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Homosexuality used to be listed among psychological disorders, until gay activists lobbied to have it removed. Some pedophiles have taken the same stance, but nobody's buying it, thank God.

One of the psychologists responsible for actively having homosexuality removed from the list of psychological disorders only three decades ago was a man named Robert Spitzer. He's changed his views. In Oct 2003, he published a study that shows that "homosexuality" can be cured through "reparative therapy."

If it can be cured through psycho-therapy, then it seems that it ought not to have been removed from the list of psychological disorders. Doing so three decades ago was a grave disservice to those afflicted with homosexual orientation.

See more about Robert Spitzer's study here:

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

You got a problem . Your Homophobic or something . Can I change you . I think I can . Give Me about 30 days a dark room a chair and some duct tape . I am pretty sure I can change you for ever more . I don't know for sure ? Pretty sure I might be able to

 

[iceaura]

Is homophobia, in a fundamental way, similar to homosexuality?

The evidence seems to indicate that homophobia is not so much "similar" to homosexuality as correlated with it - most serious homophobes seem to be closeted homosexually oriented men.

Homophobes are aroused more by gay porn than straight men are, for example: https://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

We are all familiar with the natural human tendency to hate that which one fears or envies in oneself or others, and we can forgive the reaction to a degree - but people harboring such bottled up reactions are dangerous nevertheless.

 

[wellwisher]

Homosexuality is currently given the label of natural due to PC science. This helps to create better emotional harmony in culture; right or wrong. Homophobic could also be given that label, if we wanted to make it PC proper. Political means spin, so you can spin it either way.

Not all people are homophobic or homosexual, yet some people have a greater propensity to be so. For these people, all it will take is a small push in that direction to get the ball rolling. Others would need much more push, but could be induced through herd effects; run with the herd.

All I am saying is programming brain firware can be done in many ways with different programming strategies creating different characteristic output.

Say I wanted to create a firmware programming strategy to turn a very young male child, gay. It would be easier, if I could give him dolls to play and play dress up putting him in girl's clothes. I can reinforce this with smiles.

The PC science started with the premise, there are no sexual differentiation between little boys and little girls. We do not wish to program them with sex specific toys like dolls or trucks but should give them both. Only the gays are differentiated at birth. Boys and girls can be programmed, but gays can not since this is natural, but boy girl is not. PC science altering reality.

Another way way would be pick a mother who I know will react to this little boy more like a daughter than a son. I read somewhere that first sons are less likely to become gay than later son's. The first son is dad's son, to carry on the name. He will program him with more male input. The next boy(s)might become more mama's boy or the daughter that she always wanted.

There are mothers who are better geared to raise boys, while other mothers are better with girls. Has a study even been done to see any relationship between gay yield and mother type? There are father who are good with girls and others who are better with the boys.

I am not making a value judgement but trying to the nature of the change. From a PC propagander POV, PR is better served with certain answers. I am not in it for the spin but the truth.

 

[spidergoat]

You're cute when you're wrong.

 

[billvon]

Homosexuality is currently given the label of natural due to PC science.

Actually it is labeled natural because it occurs naturally (i.e. without artificial influence) in man and in many other mammalian species. That's the definition of the word.

Say I wanted to create a firmware programming strategy to turn a very young male child, gay. It would be easier, if I could give him dolls to play and play dress up putting him in girl's clothes. I can reinforce this with smiles.

A great many parents have tried to do this in the opposite way - to 'program' their male children by giving them toy guns and baseballs, and to 'program' their female children by dressing them in dresses, making them wear jewelry etc. It has been proven to not work very well; they show the same percentage of homosexuality as kids brought up in more neutral environments.

The PC science started with the premise, there are no sexual differentiation between little boys and little girls.

No one claims this. You have made up a false position so you can argue against it. This is called a "strawman argument."

I am not making a value judgement but trying to the nature of the change. From a PC propagander POV, PR is better served with certain answers. I am not in it for the spin but the truth.

Given your persistent attempts to attack political views that you disagree with, I'd have to say that you have more spin than most people do here.

If you wish to attack liberals, and political correctness, and progressives, perhaps the political forum would be more to your liking.

 

[wellwisher]

As I read my post, I noticed the point that came to me about the PC science that worked under the premise, that young boy and girls are gender neutral, but learn to play roles through programming, such as traditional toys. Ironically, this programming dis not apply to homosexuality, since only this is natural. Only homosexual is innate but, boy and girl, which is the majority in nature, has to be artificial and easy to manipulate into roles. PC science has a dual standard in favor thh alternate reality they hoped to create. We need to redo that science, but objectively, but after growing back the balls that were cut off.

If we use the PC premise that toys make the boy or girl, we should be able to turn a bo into a girl.

 

[spidergoat]

You are wrong that young children are gender neutral. Hell, even my boy and girl cats acted differently.

 

[billvon]

As I read my post, I noticed the point that came to me about the PC science that worked under the premise, that young boy and girls are gender neutral, but learn to play roles through programming, such as traditional toys.

Incorrect. Toys do not create gender roles. Giving toy guns to a young girl will not turn her into a lesbian.

Your political preaching is getting somewhat tedious.

 

[Mutawintji]

Here is an interesting observation. .... are (there) degrees of gay and/or degrees of homosexuality? The question becomes, how is this scale fined tuned; biology or programming or both?

Biology. Primates display homosexual/bisexual behaviour .... as do most mammals

Mutawintji

 

[wellwisher]

Natural, when it comes to humans is not necessarily the same as it means for animals. If so, then killing would be natural, since many animals so this. There is more natural killing in nature that homosexuality. Stealing would be natural, since there are scavengers, etc. Even if something is labeled as natural, to get the green seal of approval, natural is not always the gold standard for humans. But since natural=green in the PC world, people are easy to confuse with the smoke.

 

[spidergoat]

Killing and stealing are natural.

 

[billvon]

Natural, when it comes to humans is not necessarily the same as it means for animals.

When a drive is similar in mankind and in related animals, it is very likely that the _drive_ is natural. In such a case, the burden of proof is on the person denying that connection. For example, you could claim that hunger in animals is natural, but in humans it is an artificial, taught behavior. It would be difficult to prove that since the drives and resulting behaviors (when not modified by learned behavior) are so similar.

We all have natural drives that have a biological basis. How we act on them, of course, is a conscious decision, and almost always based on "artificial" (i.e. man-made or man-conceived) standards or desires.