Posted on 10/30/2006 3:10:16 PM PST by dcnd9
Is Homosexuality a Learned Behavior?
Christine: My 22-year-old daughter is in a relationship with a woman. I don't believe she is a lesbian. Could this be a form of rebellion and a result of getting in with the "wrong" crowd? Can homosexuality be learned and unlearned?
Dr. Phil:
Homosexuality is not a learned behavior. A sexual orientation is inherited; you are wired that way. Certainly some people will experiment with a gay lifestyle, and a gay person might experiment with a heterosexual one. If she is really gay, she will find a place in that life and in that community. The important thing is that you just love her through that. What difference does it make if she is gay? Accept her, support her and do not be judgmental. It is difficult enough for her to live openly and honestly in this society; don't put your judgment on top of that.
======================================================
The Dr. Phil House: House of Hatred
http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/780#
Can watch a video of each segment. He leads the public to believe it's "who they are" etc.
Scary....How about the ex-gays and gays who "hate" ex-gays?
Email him here after you read and watch the videos....be polite and get your point accross
http://www.drphil.com/plugger/respond/?plugID=9164
I have always believed it is a learned behavior.
That's okay, somebody else posted some links to articles, so I think I'll start with those for now, but thanks for the info!
That would more precisely be the way I see it.
That's a very common and very understandable perspective. What I think would help is if you watched the I Do Exist video. It's the story of 5 ex-gays who state their same sex attraction wasn't a choice because they were confused about who they were. I encourage you to check it out, or some of the ex-gay links I've posted in the thread.
At least you did not say Tom Hanks on Bosom buddies.
Given that there were no social or peer-pressure forces in play; I'd agree that this 'trait' would be bred out of humanity. However, the fact is that many social and peer-pressure forces are placed upon the average man to procreate (maybe not marry, but definitely have sex with women); thus even a gay man will likely have women try to 'change his mind'.
In a sense it is. Homosexuality is learned by schoolkids everyday in America. Remember, Heather has two mommies.
sure.
Post No: 14, 20, 27, 28, & 57....for starters.
Not necessarily. While I believe that the behavior aspects of homosexuality are learned, a genetic component would not necessarily be reproductively futile, especially if one considers that its practical effects on males and females may be different.
For example, a gene which causes someone of either sex to be unusually-strongly attracted to males would likely not improve the reproductive success rate of men inheriting it, but could improve the reproductive success rate of women. If the latter effect was at least as strong as the former, the gene would continue to be spread to men and women as a consequence of the women who inherited it.
Further, there can be evolutionary value to genes which behave randomly. If some family groups had a gene which causes a random 5% of males to refrain from having children themselves but assist their relatives, such a gene might benefit such groups as a whole even if it quashed the reproductive success rate of the 5%.
I see no reason to believe that there isn't some genetic component to homsexuality, but just because something is influenced by genetics does not mean it should be given automatic license. I would not be at all surprised if there are genetic components to pedophilia, kleptomania, pyromania, alcoholism, and many other pathological behaviors, but that doesn't mean that people engaged in such things should be given free reign. People need to learn to behave acceptably even if they'd be genetically predisposed to do otherwise.
The repeatable 50-55% concordance of homosexual attraction between identical twins and roughly 20-25% with fraternal twins in twin studies indicates a mixed genetic-environmental basis for homosexuality, not either one purely. The inclination is almost certainly beyond overt control.
From what I've read, anal sex and needle sharing are a very effective vectors for HIV; nothing else even comes close. Women who receive anal sex (common in some areas) are likely to get HIV, but less likely to transmit it unless they share needles with other people.
BTW, I suspect the spread of AIDS in Africa is probably caused in part by supposedly anti-AIDS programs. Governments seeking millions or billions in aid dollars have considerable incentive to inflate their AIDS report, and little incentive to actually keep the numbers down.
Another factor, I suspect, would be that many people with AIDS think that the more common the disease becomes, the less afflicted they'll be with it. Such a belief would not be particularly rational, but it would be consistent with some observed behaviors.
Well, Dr Phil ought to know.
Some people have very strong inclinations to engage in various types of extremely harmful behavior. Some of those other inclinations are also no doubt genetic. If someone has a strong inclination to bite anything fleshy he can get his hands on, should such behavior be tolerated, or should that person be locked up unless he can control himself? It's not necessary for the state to lock up everyone who engages in behavior that is merely self-destructive, but I see no reason the state should accommodate such behavior either.
"Sex is only good when its really dirty" was the byline of the early 60s. As the strident feminists through law, MSM, and behavior made clear that being "man" would get you nothing but a lot of crap in life, it became fashionable to be gay.
Prior to that, gayness was simply about getting off on a taboo. Which, I add, is about "LIBIDO".
So the PC argument du jour is whether libido is "nature" or "nurture".
I think its a bit of both. But a specific gene? I think even that is far too rigid for DNA.
I don't think God puts quotas on Genes. Mankind does, however.
Hey, Dr. Phil? Do yourself a favor and look up the following terms: "Lezbutante", "Hasbian", "Lesbian Until Graduation". Now, if the phenomenon is common enough so that the gay community actually has multiple terms for "someone who was a lesbian for a while (especially during college) then went back to heterosexuality", then it's a pretty good bet that the phenomena actually does exist. So to reject the father's observation outright, as you did, is really bad psychological advice. Especially when he probably has more insight into his daughter's behavior than you, or the person on your staff who reads your mail, does. After all, you've spent, what, zero seconds in consulation with her?
Yeah, if you play the odds, there are many more actual lesbians out there than there are temporary ones. But to say what that daughter's sexual orientation is sight unseen is pretty dumb.
More to the point, even if libido was 100% "nature", does that mean people should have an absolute right to act upon it?
In certain all-male populations (e.g. aboard sailing ships), homosexual sodomy has been somewhat common even among men who would much rather fornicate with women. How does that fit into the "gay gene" theory I wonder?
The question is: Should they.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.