Full Version: Nurture vs. Nature
This thread was spawned from the gay marriage thread to discuss what causes homosexuality.
I am inclined to believe that it is nature more than nurture, because I have known many homosexuals that were raised in what some would refer to as "typical" American families: one father, one mother, very few domestic problems, middle to upper class, and in two cases, the father was a protestant minister. These are just my experiences in the matter.
I also believe that there are many more bisexual people in the world than heterosexual or homosexual. I think that we all fall somewhere on a sliding scale, and that's where the nurture aspect comes in. Through life experiences, bisexual people can sway one way or another. That's not to say that there aren't people who are completely homosexual or completely heterosexual. I just think that more people fall within the gray area.
I admit that I could be completely wrong about this, and I'm open to discussion...
I am inclined to believe that it is nature more than nurture, because I have known many homosexuals that were raised in what some would refer to as "typical" American families: one father, one mother, very few domestic problems, middle to upper class, and in two cases, the father was a protestant minister. These are just my experiences in the matter.
I also believe that there are many more bisexual people in the world than heterosexual or homosexual. I think that we all fall somewhere on a sliding scale, and that's where the nurture aspect comes in. Through life experiences, bisexual people can sway one way or another. That's not to say that there aren't people who are completely homosexual or completely heterosexual. I just think that more people fall within the gray area.
I admit that I could be completely wrong about this, and I'm open to discussion...
Cyan: I agree with your posting overall - especially that there are few of us who are absolutely gay or straight. I feel we all fall within a sexual continuum of sorts and believe that Alfred Kinsey had one of the better systems for defining sexual preference: a 1-to-6 scale, with 1 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual. I suspect that most people are either a 2 or a 5 (if they're completely honest with themselves) - but find it interesting that Kinsey gave his scale an even number. According to Kinsey's findings, there's no one who's right in the middle - we all have a predisposition (which I believe is genetic) toward one end of the spectrum or the other, however slight in some cases. I'd identify myself, for example, as a Kinsey 5.
The fact that homosexuality has been observed in all higher mammals (as well as many species of bird - from lesbian seagulls to male swans who, like their heterosexual counterparts, "mate" with other males for life) suggests to me that the natural disposition toward homosexual behavior is not a matter of conditioning. It has also been argued that there is a biological necessity for homosexuality - especially in human society; that a class of human which is free from the bonds of family responsibility is essential to the development of culture and society; that homosexuals are naturally predisposed toward pursuits like the priesthood, teaching, and the military.
As I mentioned in the thread which gave rise to this one, I have spoken to literally hundreds gay men and lesbians about their beliefs regarding their sexual orientation. I have not encountered one - not a single one - who felt that their sexual preference was a matter of "nurture". Even those men I know who "came out" fairly late in life - many with wives and children - admitted that they'd had a physical response to their own gender from earliest memory, but had suppressed or sublimated their natural feelings due to societal, parental, or peer pressure.
Similarly, I have yet to encounter a straight person who felt that their sexual preference emerged late in life - or was in any way a matter of "choice" or environmental conditioning. Many have admitted that they occasionally have "thoughts" about same-sex encounters (and several have actually had those encounters) or are "curious" about homosexuality, but even they felt that there was a certain level of ambivalence, with a decided preference, from their earliest memory.
I must admit that I have only ever known one guy that I would consider genuinely "bisexual" - probably a Kinsey 3 - who pursued both sexes in about equal measure (and, as he was pretty damned hot, with a reasonable amount of success.) Possibly due to "environmental" pressure, he married (a woman) a few years ago and now has two kids. By all accounts (including his own), he's been monogamous since the wedding - though admits that he still fantasizes about men with some regularity.
I've also known gay men and lesbians from a wide variety of backgrounds. For most of my early life (at university and so on), the majority of the gay men I encountered were from fairly affluent backgrounds and relatively stable families, regardless of age or race. While in Ireland, though, I did a lot of work with drug addicts (and their families), many from Dublin's inner city, often from broken homes or children of single parents, and found the gay/straight breakdown roughly equivalent to that of my college peers. As far as I can tell, "nurture" makes no difference whatsoever in one's sexual orientation.
Granted, all of the above is anecdotal and not investigated with much clinical rigor, but I am working with a reasonably large and diverse sample of people in reaching my conclusions. If sexual preference were a matter of "nurture", surely I would have encountered at least one homosexual (or, for that matter, one heterosexual) who would argue that that was so in their case.
The fact that homosexuality has been observed in all higher mammals (as well as many species of bird - from lesbian seagulls to male swans who, like their heterosexual counterparts, "mate" with other males for life) suggests to me that the natural disposition toward homosexual behavior is not a matter of conditioning. It has also been argued that there is a biological necessity for homosexuality - especially in human society; that a class of human which is free from the bonds of family responsibility is essential to the development of culture and society; that homosexuals are naturally predisposed toward pursuits like the priesthood, teaching, and the military.
As I mentioned in the thread which gave rise to this one, I have spoken to literally hundreds gay men and lesbians about their beliefs regarding their sexual orientation. I have not encountered one - not a single one - who felt that their sexual preference was a matter of "nurture". Even those men I know who "came out" fairly late in life - many with wives and children - admitted that they'd had a physical response to their own gender from earliest memory, but had suppressed or sublimated their natural feelings due to societal, parental, or peer pressure.
Similarly, I have yet to encounter a straight person who felt that their sexual preference emerged late in life - or was in any way a matter of "choice" or environmental conditioning. Many have admitted that they occasionally have "thoughts" about same-sex encounters (and several have actually had those encounters) or are "curious" about homosexuality, but even they felt that there was a certain level of ambivalence, with a decided preference, from their earliest memory.
I must admit that I have only ever known one guy that I would consider genuinely "bisexual" - probably a Kinsey 3 - who pursued both sexes in about equal measure (and, as he was pretty damned hot, with a reasonable amount of success.) Possibly due to "environmental" pressure, he married (a woman) a few years ago and now has two kids. By all accounts (including his own), he's been monogamous since the wedding - though admits that he still fantasizes about men with some regularity.
I've also known gay men and lesbians from a wide variety of backgrounds. For most of my early life (at university and so on), the majority of the gay men I encountered were from fairly affluent backgrounds and relatively stable families, regardless of age or race. While in Ireland, though, I did a lot of work with drug addicts (and their families), many from Dublin's inner city, often from broken homes or children of single parents, and found the gay/straight breakdown roughly equivalent to that of my college peers. As far as I can tell, "nurture" makes no difference whatsoever in one's sexual orientation.
Granted, all of the above is anecdotal and not investigated with much clinical rigor, but I am working with a reasonably large and diverse sample of people in reaching my conclusions. If sexual preference were a matter of "nurture", surely I would have encountered at least one homosexual (or, for that matter, one heterosexual) who would argue that that was so in their case.
It surprises me that so many animals other than humans have been observed to have homosexual nature. It seems that, in the competitive world outside of human culture, a genetic tendency toward homosexuality would not be very conducive to passing one's own genes in future generations. From a Darwinian perspective, it seems that, in non-humans, "homosexuality genes" would mostly remain either recessive (presently existing, but not active, so that the specimen would be heterosexual) or codominant (active along with the "heterosexual gene," making the specimen bisexual).
Of course, all of this post is based on a cursory look at the evidence and the assumption that, if their are homo- and heterosexual genes, they behave like dominant/recessive and codominant phenotypes.
Of course, all of this post is based on a cursory look at the evidence and the assumption that, if their are homo- and heterosexual genes, they behave like dominant/recessive and codominant phenotypes.
At Clue's request, some sources on homosexuality in nature:
Probably the best (and most comprehensive) book currently in print on homosexuality in the animal kingdom is Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. I've come across many articles on individual species in periodicals like Science, The New Scientist, and Scientific American, but Bagemihl pulls it all together - and then some. Kirkus Reviews describes the book as "a scholarly, exhaustive, and utterly convincing refutation of the notion that human homosexuality is an aberration in nature." A very funny review of the book can also be found here. Another good article on the subject ("On the Evolution and Cross-Cultural Variation in Male Homosexuality") can be found here - and cites loads of references.
Regarding the genetic origins of homosexuality, I'd recommend A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation by Chandler Burr. Recent articles on this subject include Simon LeVay's "A difference in the hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" in Science, J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard's "A genetic study of male sexual orientation" in the Archives of General Psychiatry, D. Hamer's "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation" also in Science, and Billings and Beckwith's "Born gay?" in the Technology Review. Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Men and Women by Anne Fausto-Sterling and LeVay's The Sexual Brain are two additional books on homosexuality and genetics which are fairly compelling.
Probably the best (and most comprehensive) book currently in print on homosexuality in the animal kingdom is Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. I've come across many articles on individual species in periodicals like Science, The New Scientist, and Scientific American, but Bagemihl pulls it all together - and then some. Kirkus Reviews describes the book as "a scholarly, exhaustive, and utterly convincing refutation of the notion that human homosexuality is an aberration in nature." A very funny review of the book can also be found here. Another good article on the subject ("On the Evolution and Cross-Cultural Variation in Male Homosexuality") can be found here - and cites loads of references.
Regarding the genetic origins of homosexuality, I'd recommend A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation by Chandler Burr. Recent articles on this subject include Simon LeVay's "A difference in the hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" in Science, J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard's "A genetic study of male sexual orientation" in the Archives of General Psychiatry, D. Hamer's "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation" also in Science, and Billings and Beckwith's "Born gay?" in the Technology Review. Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Men and Women by Anne Fausto-Sterling and LeVay's The Sexual Brain are two additional books on homosexuality and genetics which are fairly compelling.
1. Humans are not animals so do not compare them to us. We are not the same.
2. It is not natural for a human to be homosexual. There is no gene it is not nature.
Homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice not a God given desire. It is wrong. We should not accept that it exists. We should get rid of it. We are not all on the scale of maybe our kids will be gay or straight. It is ultimately the choice of the individual.
2. It is not natural for a human to be homosexual. There is no gene it is not nature.
Homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice not a God given desire. It is wrong. We should not accept that it exists. We should get rid of it. We are not all on the scale of maybe our kids will be gay or straight. It is ultimately the choice of the individual.
QUOTE(David @ Nov 29 2002, 02:03 PM)
1. Humans are not animals so do not compare them to us. We are not the same.
2. It is not natural for a human to be homosexual. There is no gene it is not nature.
Homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice not a God given desire. It is wrong. We should not accept that it exists. We should get rid of it. We are not all on the scale of maybe our kids will be gay or straight. It is ultimately the choice of the individual.
2. It is not natural for a human to be homosexual. There is no gene it is not nature.
Homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice not a God given desire. It is wrong. We should not accept that it exists. We should get rid of it. We are not all on the scale of maybe our kids will be gay or straight. It is ultimately the choice of the individual.
QUOTE
1. Humans are not animals so do not compare them to us. We are not the same.
Humans are born with natural intincts, just as animals are. What makes us different from animals is our reasoning ability, meaning that we can choose to either act on or ignore our natural intincts. As Wertz posted before, homosexuality has been veiwed in nature, meaning that the act in and of itself is not un-natural.
QUOTE
2. It is not natural for a human to be homosexual. There is no gene it is not nature.
Do you have any proof of this? You state your case as though it is fact, and truthfully, the scientific community has not presented conclusive evidence in either direction.
QUOTE
Homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice not a God given desire. It is wrong. We should not accept that it exists. We should get rid of it. We are not all on the scale of maybe our kids will be gay or straight. It is ultimately the choice of the individual.
I agree. Homosexuality is not a "God" given desire, but I am an atheist, so of course, I would feel that way. You say it is wrong, but I disagree. I would even go as far as to say that it is necessary for the survival of the planet.
How, might I ask, would it be necessary for the survival of the planet? It serves no benefit to the planet to be homosexual.
QUOTE(David @ Nov 29 2002, 02:47 PM)
How, might I ask, would it be necessary for the survival of the planet? It serves no benefit to the planet to be homosexual.
It certainly does. The planet is facing a major population problem. Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality might be nature's own response to that?
QUOTE(David @ Nov 29 2002, 04:03 PM)
1. Humans are not animals so do not compare them to us. We are not the same.
2. It is not natural for a human to be homosexual. There is no gene it is not nature.
Homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice not a God given desire. It is wrong. We should not accept that it exists. We should get rid of it. We are not all on the scale of maybe our kids will be gay or straight. It is ultimately the choice of the individual.
2. It is not natural for a human to be homosexual. There is no gene it is not nature.
Homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice not a God given desire. It is wrong. We should not accept that it exists. We should get rid of it. We are not all on the scale of maybe our kids will be gay or straight. It is ultimately the choice of the individual.
Humans arent animals?! What is this tripe? (god, I can not believe I just used that word....)Exactly what are humans then, if not animals? If I remember correctly we fit nicely under the animal kingdom, not the plant kingdom. We bleed, we're mobile, we breathe oxygen...All that seems to point to us being animals.
Humans are not animals and the diffrence is Humans have souls. We either go to Heaven or Hell when we die. Animals just rot. But in every other aspect you were right. And what is tripe?
It is debatable whether or not human have souls, or it animals have souls. I dont think that having a soul means you're not an animal.
Main Entry: tripe
Pronunciation: 'trIp
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French
Date: 14th century
1 : stomach tissue of a ruminant and especially of the ox used as food
2 : something poor, worthless, or offensive
Main Entry: tripe
Pronunciation: 'trIp
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French
Date: 14th century
1 : stomach tissue of a ruminant and especially of the ox used as food
2 : something poor, worthless, or offensive
may I ask of what faith (if any) are you? Humans do have souls.
Whats amusing is the amount of effort conservative christians put into raging against homosexuality when their god calls for the death of both homosexuals *and* non-virgin brides. God of the OT disapproved of many, many things and often called for death yet christians seem to save most of their judgements for gays. Where is all the condemnation for premarital sex? The old testament god wants them dead too
I sense they have other motives for pressing the anti-gay message so often.
I sense they have other motives for pressing the anti-gay message so often.
uh, and dave. Its called faith for a reason. You *believe* humans have souls, you take it on faith. Thats why god isnt hanging out in your living room drinking snapple right now, he wants your faith, not your certainty.
He may not be drinking snapple but He is in my living room and by the way my name is not dave it is David. And I as a Christian am very outspoken about Premarital sex as are most of the Christians I know. Our voices are just not heard.
QUOTE(David @ Nov 29 2002, 08:21 PM)
may I ask of what faith (if any) are you? Humans do have souls.
I am not of any particular faith (except the all divine kimism! ha).I believe in a god. I dont really see what this has to do with whether or not homosexuality is natural. If youre interested in my faith, start a thread about it. Although, with your faith in Christianity, I find it so interesting you are willing to murder innocent Iraqis, since I seem to remember the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill". But Ill leave that for another thread.
And Im not saying that humans do not have souls. Im saying that its not certain. There's no proof. And its also uncertain whether or not animals have souls. Also, just because you have a soul, it doesnt make you any better than one species, and its stupid argument.
QUOTE
And I as a Christian am very outspoken about Premarital sex as are most of the Christians I know
What the hell does that have to do with anything? We're not discussing premarital sex. And I would also like to add, that do you realize how often the Bible has been revised? And alot of that time, male prostitution was in vogue, so do you MAYBE for an instant, think that when the Bible is condemning homosexuality, its really condemning prostitution and sexual promiscuity?
I have to wonder why the question is important. If a child is born gay or chooses to be gay doesn't matter. The sin is not in being gay. The sin is in being intolerant of Gays.
We tend to link homosexuality to race...ie, he was born that way so it's not his "fault." The falicy of that is first of all, there is nothing wrong with being gay anymore than there is something wrong with being oriental, white or black.
On the other hand if being gay is a matter of choice, there is still nothing wrong with it anymore than it is wrong to choose to be Jewish or Roman Catholic, Moslim, or Fundamentalist Christian.
We tend to link homosexuality to race...ie, he was born that way so it's not his "fault." The falicy of that is first of all, there is nothing wrong with being gay anymore than there is something wrong with being oriental, white or black.
On the other hand if being gay is a matter of choice, there is still nothing wrong with it anymore than it is wrong to choose to be Jewish or Roman Catholic, Moslim, or Fundamentalist Christian.
Being gay is natural in the human race, as well as other species. I tend to think it is a balancing act with life though. People need to have some sort of problem in their life at all times, some more then others and some less than others. Having problems is what life is about, and solving and fixing those problems. That's how a lot of people grow. So if a person is gay, they are given that problem to solve (like confrontation of society). But then again, I might be babbling.
QUOTE(queenmandy85 @ Dec 19 2002, 02:33 PM)
I have to wonder why the question is important. If a child is born gay or chooses to be gay doesn't matter. The sin is not in being gay. The sin is in being intolerant of Gays.
I quite agree. The only reason - and I stress only - that I feel it is important to mention that homosexuality is natural is because so many bigots (and those who are prejudiced against homosexuals for any reason are bigots) have decided that homosexuality is "unnatural" - and have used that falsehood to justify everything from anti-gay discrimination to the extermination of homosexuals in death camps.
And, by the way, homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible - unlike, say, the abomination of eating cheeseburgers.
QUOTE(Mega Gigan @ Dec 20 2002, 01:32 PM)
People need to have some sort of problem in their life at all times, some more then others and some less than others. Having problems is what life is about, and solving and fixing those problems. That's how a lot of people grow. So if a person is gay, they are given that problem to solve (like confrontation of society). But then again, I might be babbling.
I would suggest, MG, that the "problem" belongs to those in whom homosexuality produces an irrational, hysterical reaction. I have never viewed my own sexual nature as a "cross to bear" or any kind of "problem" to be fixed or solved. If someone else has a problem with my God-given affectional preference, they can [here I would have to resort to a disreputable Anglo-Saxon verb to suggest what I really feel such people should do with themselves - instead, I'll let my non-Christian charity and sense of netiquette prevail and simply suggest that they...] go away and mind their own business - starting with their own sinfully judgemental nature.
[quote=Wertz,Dec 20 2002, 08:06 PM][QUOTE=
And, by the way, homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible - unlike, say, the abomination of eating cheeseburgers.
[/quote]
...or wearing a really nice wool / polyester skirt with a denim top....
And, by the way, homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible - unlike, say, the abomination of eating cheeseburgers.
[/quote]
...or wearing a really nice wool / polyester skirt with a denim top....
Mega you were babbling.
In my opinion, since you all seem to like throwing around your "facts", is that sexual preference is a choice just like what deity you choose. It was a choice that i made at some point in my life. Just like when I pushed a priest it was a choice I made, God can go F himself and I will continue to F females...for now...
In my opinion, since you all seem to like throwing around your "facts", is that sexual preference is a choice just like what deity you choose. It was a choice that i made at some point in my life. Just like when I pushed a priest it was a choice I made, God can go F himself and I will continue to F females...for now...
Just as a point of curiosity could someone cite examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom?
I've witnessed my dog in homosexual acts. 
At Turnea's request (from the first page of this thread):
QUOTE
At Clue's request, some sources on homosexuality in nature:
Probably the best (and most comprehensive) book currently in print on homosexuality in the animal kingdom is Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. I've come across many articles on individual species in periodicals like Science, The New Scientist, and Scientific American, but Bagemihl pulls it all together - and then some. Kirkus Reviews describes the book as "a scholarly, exhaustive, and utterly convincing refutation of the notion that human homosexuality is an aberration in nature." A very funny review of the book can also be found here. Another good article on the subject ("On the Evolution and Cross-Cultural Variation in Male Homosexuality") can be found here - and cites loads of references.
Probably the best (and most comprehensive) book currently in print on homosexuality in the animal kingdom is Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. I've come across many articles on individual species in periodicals like Science, The New Scientist, and Scientific American, but Bagemihl pulls it all together - and then some. Kirkus Reviews describes the book as "a scholarly, exhaustive, and utterly convincing refutation of the notion that human homosexuality is an aberration in nature." A very funny review of the book can also be found here. Another good article on the subject ("On the Evolution and Cross-Cultural Variation in Male Homosexuality") can be found here - and cites loads of references.
I also tend to believe that homosexuality exists along some continuum. The obvious normal human sexual orientation is the heterosexual, just by its frequency. In most populations there seems however to always be a small percentage of homosexuals and more frequently bi-sexuals. What causes homosexuality? I do not think the question can be addressed in that way. That is abstract causality type thinking, materialism, and like all causality type thinking when applied to life it is murky. I do not think the biological or environmental determinism has much merit. It is a combination of factors, biological and cultural, at least in my opinion. What is the boundry between "homosexual" and "bi-sexual" and "homosexual." It is most likely arbitrary. I tend to believe homosexuality has a lot to do with the perceptual level of consciousness relative to personal experience and possibly an elevated distribution of certain types of hormones. There is also a cultural influence I believe but that is most likely an effect of cultural distortion on the populace. Homosexuality seems to me to be played up more in the media than it used to be, and that distorts the public's perception of it. Rates of homosexuality seem to fluctuate historically with different ages of past civilizations.
Oh, I think you took it the wrong way Wertz. What I meant was that a lot of people observe society and the majority of society claims that homosexaulity is wrong (at least in Virgina they do) and that they have a problem. Because it's like you have to battle society. I don't think it's a choice.
QUOTE(Limpubus @ Dec 20 2002, 10:30 PM)
Just like when I pushed a priest it was a choice I made, God can go F himself and I will continue to F females...for now...
Wow so, according to you, sexual orintation is like pushing a priest... is it just me or does that make no sense at all?
QUOTE
And, by the way, homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible.
Might wanna check your sources. Try Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 on for size, and then tell me homosexuality isn't condemned in the Bible.
Eh, Leviticus condemns everything. You're not supposed to trim your beard like those heathens living in the cities, for example. Whoever wrote this stuff was a grousing, complaining old geezer who probably had closet issues. If we all followed Lev. to the letter, we'd all look and act like Taliban members.
QUOTE(ConservativeTeenExtraordinaire @ Dec 22 2002, 03:38 AM)
QUOTE
And, by the way, homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible.
Might wanna check your sources. Try Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 on for size, and then tell me homosexuality isn't condemned in the Bible.
Theres alot of different interpretations of Leviticus, depending on the translation.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
QUOTE
Analysis of Leviticus 18:22
This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
English translations of this verse vary. Some are:
ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .
The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality" That is unusually deceptive for three reasons:
The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.
The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.
Various interpretations of Leviticus 18:22:
Conservative Christian Interpretation: This verse condemns homosexual behavior of all types including consensual sex between two adults and monogamous sexual activity within a committed relationship. Its meaning is clear and unambiguous. This verse is often quoted in Evangelical churches and on religious radio and TV programs. "Abomination" is defined in Webster's New World dictionary as "nasty and disgusting; vile, loathsome." It is a strong word indeed! Mark Howerter writes: "The American Heritage Dictionary says this is what abominate means: 'To detest thoroughly; abhor.' A thesaurus uses : a. hate b. despise c. loathe d. detest and e. execrate as synonyms for abominate. Lest we should ever forget how God feels about homosexuality, i.e., sodomy, the whole story of Lot in Sodom as found in Genesis chapters 18-19 should be read by every person in America at least once a year." 1
Liberal Christian Interpretations:
Some English translations of this passage condemn both gay and lesbian sexual relationships. This is a mistranslation. It refers only to male-male sexual behavior.
This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice. 6
The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the position of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure.
Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah" into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word zimah.
This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today. It only condemns same-sex religious prostitution.
This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
English translations of this verse vary. Some are:
ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .
The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality" That is unusually deceptive for three reasons:
The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.
The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.
Various interpretations of Leviticus 18:22:
Conservative Christian Interpretation: This verse condemns homosexual behavior of all types including consensual sex between two adults and monogamous sexual activity within a committed relationship. Its meaning is clear and unambiguous. This verse is often quoted in Evangelical churches and on religious radio and TV programs. "Abomination" is defined in Webster's New World dictionary as "nasty and disgusting; vile, loathsome." It is a strong word indeed! Mark Howerter writes: "The American Heritage Dictionary says this is what abominate means: 'To detest thoroughly; abhor.' A thesaurus uses : a. hate b. despise c. loathe d. detest and e. execrate as synonyms for abominate. Lest we should ever forget how God feels about homosexuality, i.e., sodomy, the whole story of Lot in Sodom as found in Genesis chapters 18-19 should be read by every person in America at least once a year." 1
Liberal Christian Interpretations:
Some English translations of this passage condemn both gay and lesbian sexual relationships. This is a mistranslation. It refers only to male-male sexual behavior.
This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice. 6
The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the position of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure.
Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah" into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word zimah.
This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today. It only condemns same-sex religious prostitution.
QUOTE(ConservativeTeenExtraordinaire @ Dec 22 2002, 03:38 AM)
Try Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 on for size, and then tell me homosexuality isn't condemned in the Bible.
Okay, I've tried them. They don't fit. Homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible.
Check out this link which is from an excellent site called Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse. I'd recommend it to anyone who claims to be a practicing Christian. Briefly, both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the Baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied.
Even if one did decide to take these passages literally and out of context, attempting to enforce one of the laws of Leviticus while ignoring all of the other dietary laws, hygiene laws, grooming and sartorial laws, etc., is absurd and hypocritical in the extreme. As Leviticus says "If you do not obey me and do not carry out ALL of these commandments... I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away." If, Conservative Teen, you've ever eaten Hamburger Helper, you are just as guilty of "abomination" as the most active, promiscuous gay man that ever lived. Any given McDonald's is more of a hotbed of sin than the backroom any given gay bar in Greenwich Village. Get your priorities straight, dude (no pun intended).
One note: Jesus, of whom you might have heard, only ever quoted one verse from Leviticus: Chapter 19, verse 18, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Maybe you should put more faith in His words than in those of some Khabiru tribesman who was trying to preserve his clan through improved diet and unfettered procreation.
yep, the judeo-christian god condemns homosexuality but then he also condemns a lot of other things. He calls for death for non virgin brides as well. They are to be stoned at the village gates.
Oddly christians spend far less time on the internet attacking premarital sex. Something about homosexuality really seems to rile them up. Maybe their version of the bible has that passage underlined and the part about non virgin brides is in "quotes".. as if god was just paraphrasing some crazy thing he heard.
Maybe they have other reasons to spend so much time ranting about homosexuality. Maybe its just good old fashioned gay-bashing disguised as religious indignation.
Maybe god will ask them about it one day.
Oddly christians spend far less time on the internet attacking premarital sex. Something about homosexuality really seems to rile them up. Maybe their version of the bible has that passage underlined and the part about non virgin brides is in "quotes".. as if god was just paraphrasing some crazy thing he heard.
Maybe they have other reasons to spend so much time ranting about homosexuality. Maybe its just good old fashioned gay-bashing disguised as religious indignation.
Maybe god will ask them about it one day.
(Hi everyone, I'm kind of new here.)
My own personal little opinion on this matter, when it comes to those offended in the name of God on homosexual matters, is "he doth protest too much".
This is not to say every gay hater is a closet case. Someone here was mentioning a "Kensey" scale or something, 1-6, 1 being absolutely straight, 6 being absolutely homosexual and that most people score in between.
Can you imagine the fear a bible thumping gay hater must feel when s/he gets some odd twinge towards another of the same sex? Probably just enough fear for them to thump that bible just a little bit harder.
This behavior is even recognized in recent movies and music, not neccessarily from a Christian standpoint, but just general situation. Pieces of You. American Beauty. Whatever else.
Gay haters give me the urge to go up and whisper, "It's ok, perfectly normal."
To make a long post short, I think hatred of gays spawns from fear of homosexuality... but isn't that the way it is with most hatred?
Cheesburger eatin' Heathen.
Edit-
I think homosexuality is more nature than nuture, I think it's perfectly acceptable (as if it is for me to accept... kind of like saying heterosexuality is perfectly acceptable) and it saddens me that in this day there is even a problem with it. Especially such a large one.
I also think that people who hide behind God are going to be in many times more trouble than they believe Gay people to be in.
My own personal little opinion on this matter, when it comes to those offended in the name of God on homosexual matters, is "he doth protest too much".
This is not to say every gay hater is a closet case. Someone here was mentioning a "Kensey" scale or something, 1-6, 1 being absolutely straight, 6 being absolutely homosexual and that most people score in between.
Can you imagine the fear a bible thumping gay hater must feel when s/he gets some odd twinge towards another of the same sex? Probably just enough fear for them to thump that bible just a little bit harder.
This behavior is even recognized in recent movies and music, not neccessarily from a Christian standpoint, but just general situation. Pieces of You. American Beauty. Whatever else.
Gay haters give me the urge to go up and whisper, "It's ok, perfectly normal."
To make a long post short, I think hatred of gays spawns from fear of homosexuality... but isn't that the way it is with most hatred?
Cheesburger eatin' Heathen.
Edit-
I think homosexuality is more nature than nuture, I think it's perfectly acceptable (as if it is for me to accept... kind of like saying heterosexuality is perfectly acceptable) and it saddens me that in this day there is even a problem with it. Especially such a large one.
I also think that people who hide behind God are going to be in many times more trouble than they believe Gay people to be in.
To get back on the original topic, my conclusion from the medical data is that homosexuality is usually a pre-disposition at birth, but not pre-determined. What I am waiting for is the controversy that will occur when and if this predisposition can be determined in the womb. Will conservatives suddenly decide it is OK to abort or genetically alter a "gay" fetus? Will liberals attempt to prevent a woman from making these choices?
QUOTE(hugo @ Dec 28 2002, 09:35 PM)
To get back on the original topic, my conclusion from the medical data is that homosexuality is usually a pre-disposition at birth, but not pre-determined. What I am waiting for is the controversy that will occur when and if this predisposition can be determined in the womb. Will conservatives suddenly decide it is OK to abort or genetically alter a "gay" fetus? Will liberals attempt to prevent a woman from making these choices?
There very likely would be conservatives who would decide abortion is OK in that circumstance. After all, the Republican party is full of guys who avoided the draft, yet love to make war, and guys who promote harsher penalties in the "war on drugs," while quietly using their influence to lighten the punishments of their own family members' drug busts...
QUOTE
The bottom line is that human behavior is incredibly complex. I would think that nearly all human behavior is influenced by genetics, developmental biology, environmental influences on biology, environmental influences on psychology, early childhood experiences with caregivers and peer groups, and societal influences.
I agree 100% Cyan.
David,
My name is written in "The Lambs Book Of Life". I believe humans were MADE seperate from animals in the sense we were MADE in His image. BUT in Gods infinate wisdom and creative superiority made us animals, with FREE WILL and INSTICTS. Even at infancy human childeren "explore' their bodies, that's an instict. Reproducing is an ANIMAL instinct. God even told man and beast alike to "go forth and multiply".
We are animals WITH souls.
QUOTE
There very likely would be conservatives who would decide abortion is OK in that circumstance. After all, the Republican party is full of guys who avoided the draft, yet love to make war, and guys who promote harsher penalties in the "war on drugs," while quietly using their influence to lighten the punishments of their own family members' drug busts...
AMEN!!!!
Um, Billy Jean, David's been banned, he won't be responding to you anytime soon.
Oops. I'm sorry, I thought that was APART of his avatar design.... 
I read in TIME that homosexuality in males is caused by something occuring in the mothers womb after the mother has had previous male children. It said that gay men often have older brothers (from the same mother, of course). Anyone know more about this?
I was referred to this topic months ago when I touched on it in a separate thread. I never came, but I'll throw in some of the links I was tossing around before should anybody be interested in viewing them.
The Gay Gene
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Animal Diversity
Tweaking the Genetics of Behavior (.pdf file)
Maybe they'll have a way to look at groups of homo- and heterosexual individuals to begin examining the functions of said gene in each of them. At any case, there does appear to be support for a genetic origin from the scientific community.
The Gay Gene
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Animal Diversity
Tweaking the Genetics of Behavior (.pdf file)
QUOTE
Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.
So researchers have been able to isolate a gene seemingly responsible for homosexuality in flies, and have found a similar one in humans as well. I'm not a geneticist but I would imagine researchers will have an extremely difficult task determining if that's what the human gene is responsible for without the ability to test it. The only way to test it seems to be altering the genetic makeup of an individual to view the effects of the modification, which I'm pretty sure violates current medical ethics. Maybe they'll have a way to look at groups of homo- and heterosexual individuals to begin examining the functions of said gene in each of them. At any case, there does appear to be support for a genetic origin from the scientific community.
Back in the day of watching too much educational TV, I saw something on one of them that supports Nature.
It is based on hormones, or hormonal balance. The average or normal man has a small amount of female hormones and likewise women have a small amount of male hormones in their system. The show discussed the super female, with virtually no male hormones, and men love that type. She will be a great wife and mother, very domestic, etc.
The super male is likely to be a violent criminal. They tested a lot of guys in prison to verify that, and the violent offenders often tested as super males.
The effeminate male, with an excess of female hormones, will have softer features and is more likely to be gay, but not guaranteed. Likewise the masculine looking female, who would have an excess of male hormones, and is supposedly more prone to be a lesbian.
So the balance of hormones was the studied issue that purported to be at least A cause, if not THE cause.
The show also used some statistical evidence that indicated that stress during pregnancy could mess up the hormonal balance, based on women who had babies during the period of WWII and shortly after.
It is based on hormones, or hormonal balance. The average or normal man has a small amount of female hormones and likewise women have a small amount of male hormones in their system. The show discussed the super female, with virtually no male hormones, and men love that type. She will be a great wife and mother, very domestic, etc.
The super male is likely to be a violent criminal. They tested a lot of guys in prison to verify that, and the violent offenders often tested as super males.
The effeminate male, with an excess of female hormones, will have softer features and is more likely to be gay, but not guaranteed. Likewise the masculine looking female, who would have an excess of male hormones, and is supposedly more prone to be a lesbian.
So the balance of hormones was the studied issue that purported to be at least A cause, if not THE cause.
The show also used some statistical evidence that indicated that stress during pregnancy could mess up the hormonal balance, based on women who had babies during the period of WWII and shortly after.
As people grow up, they choose to be who they want to be. Kids grow up thinking that they want to be police men (stupid kids), or fire fighters, or whatever it is they want to be. They may want this because they like helping people or they make like to be a hero. Some may even like it because of the attention. But the occupation af a police man isn't really "good money". So as they grow up, they may loose interest in what they want to do because society today is based on MONEY. But anyways, children grow up imagening what they want to be. Their thoughts are always on having fun, growing up, and being cool. Their thoughts go wild. Some children grow up as outcast and become very lonely in their lifes. Some children grow up knowing that they are popular and that all of the other kids look up to them and think that they are cool. Some children may grow up thinking that they like the opposite sex and are never taught other wise. They think that either its ok or that it would be something differnt than what everybody does or think is cool because they wnat to be their own person. I have a friend that WAS NOT born gay but decided one day that that would be something different to try. He grew up all the way through high school "knowing" that he was straight until college. He tried something new and loved it. Therefor, I believe in nurture over nature. What do ya'll think? Do you think that it is a gene or is it something that people grow up thinking about and conguring up in their heads?
Removed photograph of questionable copyright that does not relate to the topic being addressed.
P.S. I'm a very straight Christian guy who thinks that everybody should be able be who they want to be as long as it is lawful. Gay, straight... whatever.
Removed photograph of questionable copyright that does not relate to the topic being addressed.
P.S. I'm a very straight Christian guy who thinks that everybody should be able be who they want to be as long as it is lawful. Gay, straight... whatever.
QUOTE(jpb14dml @ Sep 2 2003, 10:32 PM)
I have a friend that WAS NOT born gay but decided one day that that would be something different to try. He grew up all the way through high school "knowing" that he was straight until college. He tried something new and loved it.
I personally can't imagine that something as fundamental as human sexuality is decided on whim. I suspect that the quotation marks in your second sentence above are more pertinent than the caps in your first.
Most clinical psych poeple are supporters of the "Gaien" (sp) principle- the thought that nature and nurture are equal partners. Lets say you have the gene to be gay, but let's also say, like Odesyus, you grew up on an island of women, never saw a man, and came of sexual age and died on that island without ever seeing a man, you won't have the opportunity to be gay, so even though nature created you to be gay, nurture did not allow it. This is true for almost every gene driven characteristic. You have a gene that may make you an overeater, but you live in a country that does not have enough food, so your ability to store and eat as much food as possible makes it a survival trait actually. This is one of the things we fat poeple in america fight every day. 200 years ago our tendency towards the storage of fat made us survivors!
There is a gene for homosexuality IMO- and some research proves this, and most says about 10% of the population are gay, and this has held steady for centuries, but only recently has population world wide became large enough to really make that 10% recognizable. Look at it this way, there were many marriages where the guy/gal married at age 13/14 or so, lived his whole life working his butt off on a farm and never had the opportunity to explore his/her sexuality.
There is a gene for homosexuality IMO- and some research proves this, and most says about 10% of the population are gay, and this has held steady for centuries, but only recently has population world wide became large enough to really make that 10% recognizable. Look at it this way, there were many marriages where the guy/gal married at age 13/14 or so, lived his whole life working his butt off on a farm and never had the opportunity to explore his/her sexuality.
QUOTE
There is a gene for homosexuality IMO- and some research proves this, and most says about 10% of the population are gay, and this has held steady for centuries, but only recently has population world wide became large enough to really make that 10% recognizable. Look at it this way, there were many marriages where the guy/gal married at age 13/14 or so, lived his whole life working his butt off on a farm and never had the opportunity to explore his/her sexuality.
No, some research SUGGESTS there is a gay gene, but nothing concrete has been found. Only the Kinsey report suggest a 10% gay population, but that figure has been debunked. While I don't think it's as low as the 3% anti-gay sources would suggest, I think the 6% range is more widely accepted (while still disputed).
But if there is a gay gene, how does it survive since gays can't reproduce? The number would have to decrease over time to the point of extinction since not every gay person has children via hetero methods.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Sep 3 2003, 11:44 AM)
But if there is a gay gene, how does it survive since gays can't reproduce? The number would have to decrease over time to the point of extinction since not every gay person has children via hetero methods.
A regressive gene, carried by hetero siblings?
Genes don't have to be expressed in an individual in order to be passed on. Note that there are genetic birth defects that are fatal in childhood- the children who suffer from the defect don't pass the genes on, but the genes survive.
Note also that until recently homosexuals have been forced into a hetero life, with marriages and children.
I dunno whether it is caused by genetics or psychological factors growing up, and it doesn't matter. I do know for a fact that I couldn't just "choose" to be sexually attracted to women.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Sep 3 2003, 10:44 AM)
But if there is a gay gene, how does it survive since gays can't reproduce? The number would have to decrease over time to the point of extinction since not every gay person has children via hetero methods.
You are not being serious, I hope. If them darn kids with multiple dystrophy would just stop reproducing we could end the disease. A parent does not have to carry the "gay" gene or sequence of genes in order for his child to have it.
QUOTE(jpb14dml @ Sep 2 2003, 07:32 PM)
I have a friend that WAS NOT born gay but decided one day that that would be something different to try. He grew up all the way through high school "knowing" that he was straight until college. He tried something new and loved it. Therefor, I believe in nurture over nature. What do ya'll think?
I think that you didn't know your friend as well as you believe. Also, he might not have known himself very well, before he tried something "different".
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Sep 3 2003, 04:44 PM)
But if there is a gay gene, how does it survive since gays can't reproduce? The number would have to decrease over time to the point of extinction since not every gay person has children via hetero methods.
Because the likely "gay gene" is a variably recessive, not controlled by a single gene, but by multiple genes working in tandem. It's the same way a number of human genetic diseases that tend to kill the person before they can breed survive, it is still carried by people in which it is not expressed.
Further, there are a lot of gay people who, either because they don't realize it or they are following societal mandates, reproduce heterosexually. Just because they are 'programmed' to respond to the same sex doesn't mean their genetalia stops working.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.