 |
|
Zylka
|
|
Why do people demand the right to be seen as a minority?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:18
|
|
As long as people decide to confuse deviant behavior from legitimate behavior, we are denied recognition as a legitimate minority group.
First, if we gain fuller recognition as a legitimate minority group, then we can gain equal rights and privileges that come with citizenship. I am against special rights, as most gays are, so do not bring the straw argument that we are advocating special rights.
Secondly, the reason why our behavior is legitimate, is because it fulfills a basic, human need of love and companionship based on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. All humans have that need, whether you're gay, straight, or bisexual.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Question:
There is a neurochemical preset for one to need the "love" of a member of the opposite sex for reasons of reproduction.
I do not at all doubt that you need men, just as a lesbian or bi female needs women - I really don't. Yet isn't this, by definition, a simple chemical imbalance in the brain? I'm building my own straw-man to be knocked down here, as the lot of you will cite APA's dismissal of homosexuality as a mental disorder decades ago.
Yet homosexuality is not a choice, nor do I believe it is the product of environment. Homosexuality is a chance preset that is with you at birth.. whether or not it develops is not as much random as it is an unknown. Perhaps environment does switch this preset on or leaves it off, but there is absolutely no grounds to say environment is the single determining factor.
The APA has renounced its views before. What's your view?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
I doubt they will. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM was an act of acquiescing to public pressure rather than an act based on research. |
That is exactly the kind of action which strengthens the possibility that this is a mental disorder. I want the facts empirically, not on the basis of lobbied pressure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zylka
Question:
There is a neurochemical preset for one to need the "love" of a member of the opposite sex for reasons of reproduction.
I do not at all doubt that you need men, just as a lesbian or bi female needs women - I really don't. Yet isn't this, by definition, a simple chemical imbalance in the brain? I'm building my own straw-man to be knocked down here, as the lot of you will cite APA's dismissal of homosexuality as a mental disorder decades ago.
Yet homosexuality is not a choice, nor do I believe it is the product of environment. Homosexuality is a chance preset that is with you at birth.. whether or not it develops is not as much random as it is an unknown. Perhaps environment does switch this preset on or leaves it off, but there is absolutely no grounds to say environment is the single determining factor.
The APA has renounced its views before. What's your view? |
This is at the risk of thread-jacking. The original topic is about the concept of coming out and let's get back to that topic after this post on your question.
One of the strongest theories was developed by Dean Hamer, a molecular geneticist at the National Cancer Institute in the 1990s. Hamer conducted molecular genetic studies in conjunction with family trees and sexual orientation development (LeVay, 178-181). With the results of the studies, a pattern emerged–gay men within a pedigree tended to be connected by the female line. An example would be that a gay man in the first generation might have no gay sons. but his sister might have one or more gay sons and this continues to the next generation.
To verify this, Hamer and his colleagues did a statistical study and found that three kinds of relatives had above-chance incidence of homosexuality: brothers, maternal uncles, and cousins who were sons of maternal aunts. The reason for this inheritance pattern is that the gene is located in the X chromosome that would come in two versions–one version predisposes its owner to become heterosexual and the rarer version that predisposes its owner to become homosexual. In addition, males do not inherit the X chromosome from fathers; instead, it passes from the mothers.
Hamer’s group also found the Xq28 region within the X chromosome but have not found the specific sexual orientation gene since the Xq28 region contains hundreds of genes (LeVay, 184). However, when considering this theory, we must remember that no genetic region for sexual orientation has been found that affects women, since they have found that the Xq28 region seems to have no substantial effect on women. While they have yet to find the specific gene within the Xq28 region that helps determine sexual orientation, this theory remains as one of the strongest theories.
Source: my research report--Sexual Orientation Development
Source cited: Queer Science, by Simon LeVay
NOTE: This is a theory -- there are other theories on how sexual orientation can develop, and there might not be one exclusive way a person becomes straight or gay.
Nevertheless, that does mean that this genetic theory is implying an chemical imbalance.
And one more thing DinoDoc, I have read about the psychological researches that have been conducted. They have consistently shown that sexual orientation does not interfere with ability to function in society. It was not as a result of political pressure from 5% of the population.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:18
|
|
Some people like DinoDoc use their imagination and say that 2% or 5% of the population can apply pressure to the scientific community to churn out trash that lacks research. That is another myth. Here is more from my research report:
As with any studies that contain the possibilities of social consequences, there are many people concerned with scientists who could be biased as being pro or anti-gay. However, most sexologists and biologists are driven first and foremost by intellectual curiosity about human diversity and not by potential social consequences of their work (LeVay, 284).
There are also standard methods in science that minimize bias of any kind. These methods include: 1) appropriate statistical methods, 2) demands that experiments be described in ways so they can be repeated by others, and 3) blind procedures in which the experimenter is ignorant of which subject case belongs to while being studied (LeVay, 283). The procedures and ethics that scientists are demanded to follow help to minimize any kind of pro or anti-gay bias in regards to studies on sexual orientation development.
Source: my research report--Sexual Orientation Development
Source cited: Queer Science by Simon LeVay
And here is just one example of the many psychological researches that have been conducted to show that homosexuals are just as healthy as heterosexuals:
In 1971, a sample of 84 white, well-educated homosexual women with 94 matched heterosexual women, and 127 comparable homosexual men with 123 matched heterosexual men were selected as participants in the Thompson study (Developmental Psychology, 137-140). The scientists found the lesbians to be more self-confident than the heterosexual women and found gay men to be less defensive than heterosexual men. Heterosexual men in the sample showed higher self-confidence but overall lowest self-concept.
There were no overall differences found between the homosexual and heterosexual samples in regards to healthy self-adjustment. This study utilized standard self-evaluative and personal adjustment scales. There have been later studies that confirmed that sexual orientation does not affect psychological or physical health. It is rather the external factors of homophobia, hatred, and hostility that causes any psychological problems that would exist that are particular for homosexuals.
Source: my research report--Sexual Orientation Development
Source cited: Developmental Psychology, 137-140
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Let's not bring up the "mythical" gay gene, Mr. Fun There's as much evidence for its existance as thier is for the psychological causes of homosexuality. 
Just for amusement value, Here's a review of Queer Science for you. 
----------------------------------
"From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited." - Dean Hamer |
I read parts of the review at this hour. But what's the point? You can bring reviewers who would argue to support your opinion that LeVay is not credible, and I can bring forth reviewers who would argue to support my opinion that LeVay is credible.
As I have noted before, the genetic theory is not the only theory that is available. Perhaps sexual orientation develops differently than exclusively genetically. My other parts of my research report that I have done covers scientific theories in the psychological development realm, and other theories.
And yes, I do agree to some extent with that review, which is that there is a danger if sexual orientation is proven to be purely genetic (probably not). Which brings us to the next part of my research report:
Once we find out how sexual orientation develops, we will have to grapple with some serious ethical and social questions. Homophobic parents and doctors might try to “treat” a child into becoming heterosexual, even if it would be against his/her natural development.
In 1974, the American Psychology Association stated that homosexuality is not an illness and they based their decision on past studies and observations (LeVay, 211). The American Medical Association and the American Psychoanalytical Association support this decision (LeVay, 229).
In spite of this, we still hear or read about “treatment” centers today that claim to “cure” people of their homosexuality or bisexuality and “converting” them into heterosexuals. There are no consistent, documented successes other than from the publicized, questionable claims from the centers themselves. It could be the case that the staff of these centers are exploiting adult and/or teenage gays and lesbians who have low self-esteem or who have fears about their true sexual orientation and so they volunteer for treatment at these centers. It can be psychologically traumatic for those gays and lesbians who volunteer to try to force a sexual orientation on themselves that simply is not a part of them (forcing themselves to become heterosexual when they’re not). Many people in the affirmative gay community believe these centers are simply one avenue for homophobic people to attack gay society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boddington's
Talk about how to ruin a childhood. Raised by two lesbians - who would have wanted that upbringing?
No-one. |
Who the hell are you to say that?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2002 06:03
|