Posted on 01/29/2003 11:29:48 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Summary: You be the judge. A letter form the editor in chief.
... I bring these matters to your attention because of a threatening phone call I received a few weeks ago from a fellow psychologist. On page 78 of our last issue, PT ran a small ad for a book called A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., and his wife Linda. Nicolosi is a psychologist who specializes in trying to help unhappy gays become straight. Apparently feeling that this rather modest contribution to the literature on homosexuality wasn't getting enough attention, the psychologist, who identified herself as a lesbian activist, called me at home on a Saturday to tell me that PT should not have run such a heinous ad, that she was speaking for "thousands" of gays who were going to boycott PT, "and worse," that Dr. Nicolosi was a "bigot," that no gay person had ever successfully become straight, that homosexuality was entirely determined by genes, and that sexual conversion therapy had been condemned by the American Psychological Association. I told her that the editorial department at PT has no connection whatsoever with the advertising department, but she was unimpressed. She subsequently posted messages on the Internet urging people to harrass me at home (no one else ever did) and to send me complaint letters.
In all, I received about 120 letters, many of which exemplified a bad game of Telephone: Some people complained about an anti-gay "article" PT had published; others referred to an anti-gay book I had published and people who weren't subscribers said they were dropping their subscriptions. Several writers suggested I was a "Nazi" and a "bigot," and one compared me with the Taliban. A surprising number of letters asserted that gays have a right to be rude or abusive because they themselves have been abused. Most echoed the same points that my caller had made....
(Excerpt) Read more at psychologytoday.com ...
No, of course not, madg. Being polite is a learned behavior. One of my sons is far more polite than the other, despite the fact that they both receive the same bringing up. The twins thing shows that homosexuality is not genetic; therefore, it must be the product of environment. That doesn't mean that the effects of environment will always be the same - especially because, even with twins, they rarely experience that exact same things in life. One may be favored by the father, one may develop more of an interest in sports, etc. etc.
How do you think Doris Day must have felt?
Further, there is now gene-changing technology for many genetic illnesses. If homosexuality is genetic, there may one day be a cure.
Because there is no selective advantage for them (as individuals.) They didn't (in general) directly pass on offspring. The genes are passed through relatives. Therefore there is no selective pressure related to physical characteristics -- only to behavior. The selective pressure is to the group, not the individual.
Now you may say, well that is strange. Is there any other human characteristic that benefits the group rather than the individual, and where the characteristic is exhibited through behavior rather than as a physical characteristic?
Yes. There are many studies that have been done on the selective advantage of "altruism". In nature, this is where an individual will take a risk that benefits others in the group, but increases the risk to that individual. The open question has been - how is this behavior genetically determined, if exhibiting the behavior will reduce the chance of the individual reproducing. The answer is, it is genetically passed through that individuals relatives.
If two heterosexuals must be carriers to produce the gay recessive trait then this is true of their offspring:
1 in 4 will be gay
2 of 4 will be carriers
1 in 4 will be neither.
Of those...half cannot reproduce a gay offspring -- one being gay, the other being a non-carrier.
Of the 2 that can pass it on....they can mate with either a non-carrier or a carrier, so, assuming the same beginning stats, they have a one in three chance of being unable to produce a gay kid, and if that's the case, they would only have a 25% chance of producing a carrier.
The carriers would then have a two thirds chance of mating with another carrier. Of those, they only have a 50% chance of producing another carrier.
So....of the total carriers, they have a 5 out of 12 percent chance of producing a carrier, that's 5 out of 18 for the reproducers, and 5 out of 24 children born. As this process continues the percentages will decrease the chances of being gay -- Quickly.
Repeat this process over thousands of years and the gay population should slowly die out.
If you go down the "all behavior is genetic" route, then why is ANYONE in prison? Do we have no choice in how we behave?
Are sheep supposed to be perfect beings incapable of unatural behavior?
And the biologists do believe that "altruism" has a genetic component. Your arguments about the recessive gene gradually being eliminated would be equally applicable to that. So you would think they would be aware of the argument.
This is also true for recessive genes that produce albinism. Yet albinism is still with us. And note that in most cases, neither the parents nor the grandparents nor the great grandparents of a person with albinism manifest the condition. Yet it continues to be passed along. So...it is more complicated than your argument makes it appear.
Perhaps, even after all these years, a rare trait can still exist by carrier match-ups only. But gays claim 10% of the population.
Also, how about other sexual behavior then -- whether "good" or "bad?" Can anyone be held responsible for anything?
I do not even buy the altruism argument. How does "doing things for the benefit of others" apply? Are you saying homosexuality benefits others and is some kind of act of sacrifice? I really don't get that.
Okay, I went back and reread what you said. You were just giving an example. LOL Duh. It sounds very far-fetched to me. Where does choice, character, kindness, goodness, and stuff like that fit in? The existence of altruism just reveals the part of humanity that is made in God's image, imo. How do you explain the human spirit? How do you explain human love, sacrifice, and self-denial? We are much more than just a bunch of genes. The CHOICES we make are the variables that separate great men from average or below average men. That's not genetics, that's free will.
Don't get me wrong. Personally, I think a bunch of homosexual behavior is a "learned" behavior. I think that a person is "imprinted" towards heterosexuality or homosexuality as they enter puberty. But I think there is probably a genetic component also. Thus I think that someone might be genetically oriented towards homosexuality but will never practice it due to their culture. In that case they might not be very sexually oriented, or might become celibate, for example. I also think that someone who is genetically oriented towards heterosexuality (by far the general case) might, due to environmental experience or culture, practice some homosexuality but not be particularly interested in it.
Many if not most human behaviors have a genetic component. But the vast majority of behaviors are heavily influenced by culture.
So, if it turned out there was a genetic tendency towards homosexualty for a fraction of the population (say 2%), that does not mean that we have to say, well that's okay then. Our culture should still reject it. We should, in my opinion, suppress it. When we don't, the "gay" culture as we have seen is pretty disgusting and self destructive. But because it may well be that there is a such a genetic tendency, we need to "manage" the situation, not tar and feather them.
The 3 reproducing offspring of the original carriers (2 to 1 carrier/non-carrier) would produce an equal number of carriers to non-carriers (16/16). So the ratio is reduced to 1 to 1...and so forth...the odds keep going down.
I think that's right. Other recessive traits rely on the person with the trait reproducing. Otherwise, the trait just becomes more rare. I know, you got the idea, LOL. But the math kept bugging me.
Either they're in denial or hiding it, like James Hormel, or "ex-gay", like John Paulk.
If homosexuality is natural, then why do lesbians still have periods? Why do they ovulate? Why do gay men still have sperm? What possible purpose does that serve to their sexual wiring, if one is going to argue that it is natural? Why do they still desire children. How cruel of nature that would be, outside of a disorder or malfunction, to evolve a sexual class that desires children but cannot produce them. Isn't all of that a contradiction in brain function at least?
How about this...if a gay man has a child with a lesbian woman would their child be guaranteed to be gay? And if the gay man can have intercourse with a woman, does that mean he is really bisexual? If not, then that crowd concedes that every sex act is not about orientation and thereby weaken their own argument. An argument, let me add, that is built on emotion, not facts or logic.
Because they're human. Sperm-production and menstruation have nothing to do with sexuality -- ask any five year-old who has a crush on his teacher, or post-menopausal woman who's still sexually-active. Why are some people born with a sixth toe or a third nipple; why do men have nipples at all?
if a gay man has a child with a lesbian woman would their child be guaranteed to be gay?
There are so many ways to answer that question. If sexuality were controlled solely by a single gene, then yeah, probably -- however, such a scenario doesn't leave much room for bisexuals.
The fact that sexuality isn't binary doesn't rule out a genetic component. It's possible that sexuality is entirely genetic, controlled by a variety of genes to the exclusion of environmental factors, much like eye or hair color, or influenced by environmental factors, much like height or weight.
And if the gay man can have intercourse with a woman, does that mean he is really bisexual?
If you're talking about seeing the act through to the end, I'm sure you know that the only requirement is warm friction -- getting that from the inside of a rabbit-skin glove wouldn't make one a beastialist with necrophilic tendencies.
If you're talking about getting sexually excited with someone of the wrong sex, is a man really bisexual if he gets an erection during a physical-exam by a male doctor? Is a male really bisexual if he's anything other than completely flacid in the gym lockerroom?
If you are going to make the argument that some people are born to only have sex with the same sex then it stands to reason that they would have sex organs that "go together" as well as no need for the reproductive attributes and cycles of heterosexuals. Why does a lesbian have eggs? If she is "born that way" then the process should make physical and biological sense beyond just desire.
All sex is not reproductive, but all reproduction is sexual. Therefore, any "born that way" gay or lesbian has no need for the reproductive aspects of sexual intercourse. Why do they have them anyway. It's a valid question.
If you're talking about getting sexually excited with someone of the wrong sex, is a man really bisexual if he gets an erection during a physical-exam by a male doctor?
The argument that sexual responses are only attributed to "orientation" is the gay argument, not mine. Thanks for making my point. We are born with a sex drive and certain physical responses to stimulation of genitals. How we do it is a choice -- and emotional as well as mental health play a part in that.
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.