Gay Mormons committing suicide

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

"why are some families totally passed over with this "gene" and others have several members who are so lucky toi have been blessed with it during the same era, IOW several brothers and maybe sisters have homosexual tendencies??"

Where do I start with how poorly this is worded? Some "families" totally passed over with this gene? Yeah--that's the definition of a gene. "Others have several members"? I can only assume that "others" means other families--again something you would expect with genetic transmission.

Now you clarify that you meant that within your family, the trait has never shown up until now. That doesn't look anything like your original statement above. So yeah--poorly worded.

Again...I'm not denying other factors playing a role (although adopted twin studies--where two identical twins raised in completely different households demonstrate similar rates of homosexuality--seem to confirm a large role for genetics). However, none of the factors cited (abuse, crazy home life, whatever) have anything to do with choice. Again, why choose homosexuality???

This whole discussion just proves my earlier point--there are still people in the Church who, despite what the Church has even officially stated, think homosexuality is a choice. We're not getting past the homophobia until they either change their mind or die off.

We can bicker about percentages, but there are undoubtedly people who are gay (or at least bisexual) by choice. There are also undoubtedly another undetermined percentage that are gay as a result of their socialization, who would otherwise be straight if they had been brought up in a different environment.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

We can bicker about percentages, but there are undoubtedly people who are gay (or at least bisexual) by choice. There are also undoubtedly another undetermined percentage that are gay as a result of their socialization, who would otherwise be straight if they had been brought up in a different environment.

Link?

1. This is stated as fact, but seems like an opinion.

2. I would honestly like to learn more about this from the scientific literature you have read.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

We can bicker about percentages, but there are undoubtedly people who are gay (or at least bisexual) by choice. There are also undoubtedly another undetermined percentage that are gay as a result of their socialization, who would otherwise be straight if they had been brought up in a different environment.

Socialization is a non-issue, as it has nothing to do with conscious choice. Whether I'm born with a genetic trait or the trait is instilled through my upbringing doesn't matter much in the end--homosexuality is not the result of a series of bad choices (our original point of contention).

I agree that there are some who choose the lifestyle, although even in these cases, one has to question their psychological state. Until I hear a decent reason why someone would choose this lifestyle, with the associated stigma and difficulties, I'm not going to believe that this represents a significant number of homosexuals.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Link?

1. This is stated as fact, but seems like an opinion.

2. I would honestly like to learn more about this from the scientific literature you have read.

Bi-curious?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Until I hear a decent reason why someone would choose this lifestyle, with the associated stigma and difficulties, I'm not going to believe that this represents a significant number of homosexuals.

The stigma and difficulties are slowly going away, especially if you move to gay-friendly areas.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Socialization is a non-issue, as it has nothing to do with conscious choice. Whether I'm born with a genetic trait or the trait is instilled through my upbringing doesn't matter much in the end--homosexuality is not the result of a series of bad choices (our original point of contention).

I agree that there are some who choose the lifestyle, although even in these cases, one has to question their psychological state. Until I hear a decent reason why someone would choose this lifestyle, with the associated stigma and difficulties, I'm not going to believe that this represents a significant number of homosexuals.

I don't find the "why would they choose it on purpose" argument very compelling. Lots of people make choices that don't make any sense.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't find the "why would they choose it on purpose" argument very compelling. Lots of people make choices that don't make any sense.

Ok...I'm done with this. My whole original point was that there are many in the church who still believe that homosexuality is a choice, or at least the end-result of a series of smaller bad choices. The fact that we're having this discussion just highlights this fact. You may think that's just fine. I think it's sad and wrong. I don't think I'm convincing you, so it seems sort of fruitless.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Ok...I'm done with this. My whole original point was that there are many in the church who still believe that homosexuality is a choice, or at least the end-result of a series of smaller bad choices. The fact that we're having this discussion just highlights this fact. You may think that's just fine. I think it's sad and wrong. I don't think I'm convincing you, so it seems sort of fruitless.

Were you trying to convince me of something? I haven't really been a major participant in this thread.

Given the available evidence (or lack thereof), it's not unreasonable for people to believe that at least some (no idea on a percentage) gays choose their lifestyle. You're welcome to make an argument otherwise but "why would they do that" is not very compelling.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Link?

1. This is stated as fact, but seems like an opinion.

2. I would honestly like to learn more about this from the scientific literature you have read.

Actually, MW there is some empirical work done on this in economics by Andrew Francis that is related to Indy's point. There was a nice New York Times article about a year ago. Francis looks at sexual preference of men and woman if they have a family member with AIDS. The implications are interesting. From the New York Times article:

The survey was conducted in 1992, when the disease was much less treatable than it is today. Francis first looked to see if there was a positive correlation between having a friend with AIDS and expressing a preference for homosexual sex. As he expected, there was. "After all, people pick their friends," he says, "and homosexuals are more likely to have other homosexuals as friends."

But you don't get to pick your family. So Francis next looked for a correlation between having a relative with AIDS and expressing a homosexual preference. This time, for men, the correlation was negative. This didn't seem to make sense. Many scientists believe that a person's sexual orientation is determined before birth, a function of genetic fate. If anything, people in the same family should be more likely to share the same orientation. "Then I realized, Oh, my God, they were scared of AIDS," Francis says.

Francis zeroed in on this subset of about 150 survey respondents who had a relative with AIDS. Because the survey compiled these respondents' sexual histories as well as their current answers about sex, it allowed Francis to measure, albeit crudely, how their lives may have changed as a result of having seen up close the costly horrors of AIDS.

Here's what he found: Not a single man in the survey who had a relative with AIDS said he had had sex with a man in the previous five years; not a single man in that group declared himself to be attracted to men or to consider himself homosexual. Women in that group also shunned sex with men. For them, rates of recent sex with women and of declaring homosexual identity and attraction were more than twice as high as those who did not have a relative with AIDS.

Because the sample size was so small - simple chance suggests that no more than a handful of men in a group that size would be attracted to men - it is hard to reach definitive conclusions from the survey data. (Obviously, not every single man changes his sexual behavior or identity when a relative contracts AIDS.) But taken as a whole, the numbers in Francis's study suggest that there may be a causal effect here - that having a relative with AIDS may change not just sexual behavior but also self-reported identity and desire.

In other words, sexual preference, while perhaps largely predetermined, may also be subject to the forces more typically associated with economics than biology. If this turns out to be true, it would change the way that everyone - scientists, politicians, theologians - thinks about sexuality. But it probably won't much change the way economists think. To them, it has always been clear: whether we like it or not, everything has its price.

Stated sexual preference and activity is at least to some degree is affected by the price of sex. If the price of homosexual sex and identity is relatively high (male-male sex in the data) than people consume less of it. If the price if homosexual sex and identity is relatively low (female-female sex in the data), then people consume more of it. (Note, I am not dismissing biology. I am just saying prices matter)

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Actually, MW there is some empirical work done on this in economics by Andrew Francis that related to Indy's point. There was a nice New York Times article about about a year ago. Francis looks at sexual preference of men and woman if they have a family member with AIDS. The implications are interesting. From the New York Times articles:




Stated sexual preference and activity is at least to some degree is affected by the price of sex. If the price of homosexual is sex is relatively high (male-male sex in the data) than people consume less of it. If the price if homosexual sex (female-female sex in the data), then people consume more of it. (Note, I am not dismissing biology. I am just saying prices matter)

I was asking the surly bully student sitting in the front the question, not the teacher's aide.