A renewed struggle regarding the sexual orientation of humans
When did you choose to be straight?
Sorry?
According to the demographic distribution, since about 95% of the population (in the USA) identify as heterosexual, most of you, the readers of this article, are straight. You did not choose this sexual orientation any more than gays or lesbians chose their orientation. However, in the fall of 2016, Lawrence S. Meyer and Paul R. McHugh of Johns Hopkins University published a new study in the journal The New Atlantis, whose articles do not pass peer review, entitled "Sexuality and Gender", in which they claim that "the scientific knowledge we have This subject is still not consolidated," and that "there is no scientific evidence to support the view that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate biological trait." They conclude with the statement that "we are not born this way." Things sound like they were taken from the 90s of the 20th century, the last time there were heated gender wars. So what's going on here?
A clue to the explanation is the identity of one of the journal's publishers, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), "which devotes its efforts to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy." We have therefore left the field of science. The scholars of EPPC, as it is written on the institution's website, "consistently strive to protect and advance the fundamental principles of the American nation: respect for the nobility inherent in every person, personal freedom and responsibility, justice, the rule of law, and limited government."
Don't these principles apply to every man and woman regardless of whether their sexual orientation is biologically determined? Certainly yes, and in most western countries they do apply to everyone today. But in Judeo-Christian America the argument is this: in the Bible it is written that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus, XNUMX:XNUMX). If sexual orientation has a strong biological component, then it is difficult to morally blame gays and lesbians for their sinful behavior. But if it is a choice, then they can be rehabilitated (through "conversion therapies") and forgiven ("love the sinner, hate the sin," as the popular proverb states). The Christian preacher Jimmy Swaggart put this line of thought this way: "Since the seed of original sin carries with it every kind of perversion, defect, abnormality or evil deed, the homosexual cannot claim to be born that way any more than any drunkard, gambler, murderer, etc. .”
Geneticist Dean Hammer, a retired professor at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), says that even if the authors of the New Atlantis paper are not so crude and intolerant in their conclusions, their paper "is a picky and outdated collection of quotes and arguments designed to confuse more than clarify our understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity.” For example, Mayer and McHugh claim that the concept of sexual orientation is "vague" and that there are no "agreed-upon definitions used in experimental research." But it is not so. The American Psychological Association defined sexual orientation as: "a persistent pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction to men, women, or both sexes," and as Hamer demonstrates, sexual orientation is a much less "vague" concept than other personality traits such as "self-esteem" and "Warmths" that scientists investigate without any religious or political reference.
Mayer and McHugh also appear to be selective in their data because they chose to cite only one study out of six published in the scientific literature over the past 16 years, peer-reviewed, and using appropriate methods of probability sampling, "and it turns out that of all these studies, this study is the one where the estimate of the genetic influence [on sexual orientation] is the lowest," Hamer says. Moreover, the entire article was refuted in another study, during which a super-analysis (meta-analysis) of data on a very wide scale was conducted. The authors of the study, Northwestern University psychologist Michael Bailey and his colleagues published their findings, after peer review, in the September 2016 issue of the Journal of Public Service Psychological Science. In their article, the researchers showed "that the amount of evidence for non-social causes of sexual orientation is considerably greater than the amount of evidence supporting social causes." The evidence includes: “moderate genetic effects demonstrated in adequately sampled twin studies; The cross-cultural effect shows a clear influence of the birth order of brothers on the sexual orientation of men [the greater the number of adult brothers, the more likely the younger brother will be homosexual - the editors]; And the finding that when boys undergo a surgical and social sex change in childhood and "become" girls, their sexual orientation in adulthood does not change (that is, they continue to be attracted to females). In contrast, the evidence for the presumed social causes that are often presented, such as the sexual seduction of homosexual adults, patterns of abnormal parenting or the influence of homosexual parents, is usually weak evidence in strength and tends to be distorted by many conflicting factors."
The problem with any research topic involving religion or politics is prejudicial considerations and confirmation bias, or as it is written in the New Testament (Matthew XNUMX:XNUMX): "Ask and it will be given to you." When ideas determine perceptions, ideology wins and science suffers.
33 תגובות
Some incorrect things that appear in the article:
A. According to Judaism there is no guilt in being gay, the Torah instructs gays to refrain from having sex.
B. The fact that a Christian person writes a scientific article does not mean that he is motivated only by religious reasons and does not think that this is the scientific truth.
third. In schizophrenia and bipolarity it is clear that the genetic component is very strong, yet most of the scientific world believes that there is an environmental influence. Therefore there is no reason to rule it out even with the opposite tendencies.
א
If I understood you, then I agree with you.
We adopted 20 years ago and I know the adoption process back then. I guess he is no different today.
After the genocide in Rwanda we wanted to adopt an orphan from there. The government there prevented the process and preferred that these children starve. We investigated what is happening in Israel and it turned out that there are two adoption processes. The first is a normal adoption - a young couple who cannot give birth can then adopt a baby under the age of two. An unusual adoption is when it is an unmarried parent, an older couple or, in our case, a couple who already have biological children. So, you can adopt a baby with a medical problem, a baby with a legal problem, a child over two years old, or an Ethiopian baby (!!! ). We ended up adopting a two-year-old boy.
I think I will take what you said to an extreme - I am against surrogacy and also against all fertility treatments. Adopting is hard, but worth the effort!
And of course it is better for a child to grow up with an LGBT couple than to grow up without a loving family. It's better for everyone.
Except, of course, dark misanthropes like Devir...
Mr. A. the honorable
If after a detailed and orderly treatise of arguments, constructed at great length and layer upon layer, you have lost the ability to respond
(Perhaps because you don't read and refer to the content, just looking for anchors for a verbal confrontation, which is really not the point
mine) so all that remains is to wish you a good life and a complete recovery.
It's impossible to convince you anymore, so why try?
Good night.
Miracles
I'm glad you agreed with me but I wanted to point out something else between two people and I'm against it, surrogates. (I am of course totally opposed to it, regardless of whether it is a same-sex couple or fertility problems) In my opinion, it is not much different from allowing people to sell a kidney at a high price (organ trade). There are definitely things that the state must prohibit even if they are done "of their own free will". I say this with all empathy for those couples who cannot have children. But even in the case of a kidney transplant it is forbidden and there it is not just about the desire for a child these are actually in people's lives!
The responsibility of the state should be to prevent the exploitation of the weaker sections of society by the rich. The ridiculous thing is that the situation is reversed! The state set a maximum price to "prevent extortion" which shows who its concern is. As with organ transplantation, only voluntary surrogacy should be allowed.
Regarding adoption. A distinction should be made between adoption within the family (as in the case of orphans) or by a spouse, since it is certain that LGBT couples should receive equal treatment.
and the adoption of children who were removed from the home or given up for adoption and are now in the custody of the state.
So first of all it must be understood that this is a small amount of babies compared to the huge demand (and this number is also too high and we need to work to lower it. A large part of taking children out of the home is not justified and is only possible because of the financial weakness of the parents and the denial of legal representation for the family. Here too the state is often raised in its role protect the weak for the benefit of the rich) in addition the number is decreasing due to the reduction of unwanted pregnancies. This small amount is distributed to the most standard families with the least amount of problems that may arise. This does not say anything about the legitimacy of the disqualified groups. If one of the spouses has a disability, the other will be preferred over him. What does it mean that the state thinks disabled people should not have children? Does that mean a disabled person can't raise a happy child? No!
Of course there is nothing to talk about single parent women I understand why they would prefer to give to another family and not to them. So does that mean I think a woman can't raise a child alone? No, I think she can. He will grow up and have a struggle in life that he will have to deal with and it can even build him a stronger being. And yet the state should not look for challenges for these children. Growing up in a family for LGBT people, I'm sure it's a struggle (if you don't agree with me, you can read the comments in the discussion from the beginning). I am also sure that it is possible and that they can grow up to be happy people. And still the state's position makes sense. Maybe in the future it will be possible to reconsider (hoping that in the future the number of babies requiring adoption will be completely zero)
א
The percentage of LGBT people in the US is 3.8%. I guess it's no different in the rest of the world.
Miracles
What is interesting about this discussion (or rather worrying) is that it seems that a large part of the homophobic opinion does not come from a religious direction at all. For example, the proposal that was thrown here to develop a test for prenatal care to identify gays in order to perform an abortion, be sure that it did not come from a religious person.
Dvir
You shoot slogans in bunches without any one neat and coherent argument. It is impossible to respond to such a thing at all. Apart from shouting "the end of the world, the end of the world" you didn't write anything.
What I did manage to understand is that you blame the LGBT community (which is only slightly more than 10%) for almost all the problems in the world. Among other things, the decline in the birth rate in Europe. Are you serious?!
And of course you also blame the decay of morality. And I ask why?
You admit that all the achievements they achieved were thanks to their struggles (including the achievement that they stopped persecuting them or defining them as illegal. You are welcome to check when in Israel it stopped being a criminal offense) so why do you expect them to settle for half equality?
Please try to write an objective response and not a flood of slogans
Dvir
You are a good example of what Steven Weinberg said that religion can make a good person bad. It's clear to me that you don't see it, so I'll ask just one question and you'll answer me honestly:
What would you do if it turns out your son is gay?
א
I get everything you say. Your wording is good.
I read the responses to the things I wrote before and I don't know whether to regret the demagoguery or to understand that the way of a person to speak from a position is sometimes stronger than any logical argument no matter how solid it may be (I also speak from a position, I worry about the survival of liberal-pluralist western culture, with the perception that you have nothing that has no limit or limit, and if you go "too far" you lose the way back).
Let's talk about the matter of "accepting the difference".
How much "difference" are we supposed to accommodate and how much should this difference be subject to any human norms? We live in an era where God was "killed" and therefore we have no source of authority to regulate values and morals, and if we don't "catch ourselves" in time the slippery slope will throw us into the abyss.
How much "different" can we accommodate without destroying the value infrastructure on which human culture is based? Today, pedophiles are singled out of disgust, but there are already parties in Europe that "promote pure love" of this shocking type, and there is no need to go into descriptions of other deviations and the loss of a human image.
There must also be a limit to LGBT propaganda. They began their journey to change consciousness with demonstrations to obtain basic rights to live with dignity and not shame, they achieved this quite successfully and it is possible to accept this from the humane-liberal perspective that understands that they are sick (and they are sick with the assumption "and yet move on") so this is a proper compassion.
Inventing all kinds of additional "rights" is a hollow and destructive demagoguery - those who want a relationship with another person will do it in their own free way, those who want children will find their partner and have a child with them in a natural and normal way.
From here to changing fundamental norms and uprooting morality, the road is long and slippery. In the absence of "God" what gives moral validity to our actions is the meaning, and the meaning of joining spouses into a family unit is bringing children into the world in the natural way - not artificially producing them or robbing them from the womb of a surrogate mother. A priori, we must take care of the child for the father and mother, because otherwise we sin against nature, children and human morality.
And for those who will say that "the reproduction of the phenomenon of diverse sexuality" is part of the acts of nature, then on the contrary - if "nature" wants to limit birth by imitating and diverting normal human relationships to deviations that are not fertile, then techniques such as the artificial production of children is another kind of tremendous foul towards nature .
To all those who write from the position that they carry this disease - please prove that you are not sick to the point that you are unable to understand reality as it is. are you able
A morally weak society is falling apart and if you really care about Israel, Zionism, Judaism and the future of our children, limit your loud demands, which today have support from foreign interest groups and an ear in the media, and take care of the big issues of your private and egoistic interest, not your "personal experiences". Live a humble and quiet life, leave other people's children and stop grabbing attention at the expense of disadvantaged populations who have no voice.
(For the one who wrote "I don't know companies that broke up because of moral problems" you are invited to read history books and understand how the Hellenistic and Roman culture fell apart because of meaningless donism and sexual deviations of all kinds and forms, when boundaries were breached and morality became a luxury).
Miracles
First of all, this is a very complex issue. It is also not clear to me whether you want a detailed answer on the topic of suicides (which is a broad topic with many parts; euthanasia, avoidance of treatment, terminal or chronic cases...) or whether the question comes to challenge the statement "anything done between two adults, etc.." Then, of course, the question can be expanded to other topics such as drugs, safety belts, and even mutual consent to work for less than the minimum wage. And in the end I will have to admit that there are limitations to this statement and I still say that it should be the basis for establishing laws and norms in society. And there has to be a very special reason to break this rule. If the homophobes who commented here have such an argument, they are welcome to present it. But the statement "it's not the way of nature" is not an argument and it is irrelevant. (The only thing that can be an argument is his belief that they are to blame for the AIDS outbreak. I will leave it to the biology experts among us to explain to Nostradamus why this is not true)
post Scriptum.
A final word on suicides. Of course, when talking about the right to do things as long as they don't harm others, there is the condition "with a clear mind and not while exploiting" it is clear that there is a problem with the definition, and it is clear that they may try to pull it in all kinds of directions. But everything can't be perfect. By and large, minors are not considered "with a clear mind" and prostitution is considered exploitation, and suicide is also not considered a clear mind. Of course this is problematic because, for example, LGBT people were previously considered a mental illness. And in general the definitions of mental illness are problematic. But one cannot ignore the fact that an overwhelming majority (can't remember the number) of the survivors of suicide attempts manage to get out of the suicidal situation and report that they are glad they were saved. That's why I strongly oppose the hyper-liberal policy of specific European countries that approve a poison prescription for almost anyone who needs it, even for those suffering from depression.
א
What do you think about the human right to commit suicide?
*The same attitude as the rest of the population, of course, and not as one might mistakenly understand that half of them are LGBTs*
Nostradamus
What about everything you wrote? What is wrong with you? I didn't get into the debate about whether it's "natural" or not and I won't either.
Because it is not relevant even if we say that it is unnatural and it is a disease/genetic defect (not that I think so and it is also an internal contradiction because diseases and genetic defects are part of nature) it is simply not relevant. People have a right to do unnatural things as long as they don't hurt or take advantage of someone else for whatever reason it is their right. Why does such a logical statement that only harming another makes something non-messary seem self-evident to you?
You don't strike me as one who believes that their actions have a mystical effect on things like earthquakes. You don't sound like a religious homophobe to me (contrary to what many people think, religion doesn't have a monopoly on homophobia) that's at least my feeling (also the fact that you chose the name of a Jew who converted to Christianity made me think so) in a way it's harder for me to argue if people like you. It is difficult for me to understand what is the starting point of your values (these are neither religious nor liberal values, so what are they?) so I really don't know what to say.
Apparently it's a basic homophobia of strange fear. Or are you really afraid that more and more people stop being ashamed of themselves could somehow affect your children? Then you can be really calm. It doesn't affect, even children of LGBT people are attracted to members of the opposite sex or members of their same sex in exactly the same ratio (or at least not with a detectable difference) so even if the parade every year passes right under your house it will have no effect.
Miracles
That's not exactly what I wanted to say. I'm sure some of them don't want to change and some do. Even in other anomalies there are those who want it and there are those who don't. There are even deaf people who refuse an implant that can restore hearing. But that's not the point. As long as the abnormality does not harm the other, it is the right of each and every one to decide for himself whether he wants to change. The only problem is that in their case it is impossible.
Nostradamus
The brain is not designed for this purpose either. And yet you keep the mind endless.
A. Is the butt meant to have a penis inserted into it? And if so, why do gays do enemas, put vaseline on, get prolapse and other rectal problems that don't break, that it is the gays' sole fault for the rapid spread of AIDS and that a very high percentage of them get sick. And there is a difference between tricks that do not harm health compared to those that do
א
You hit on the most important point - unlike other anomalies, homosexuals don't want to be changed (in my understanding, maybe I'm wrong)
And in addition to that - there is no reason for the other people to change them.
Nostradamus and Isaac
It is impossible to change the sexual orientation of humans regardless of whether it is due to genetics/environment/different brain development/any other explanation. It is impossible to change a tendency for the simple reason that it is simply not possible. That is, no "treatment" that really worked was ever presented. And not that they didn't try, over the years they performed many experiments without any mercy or ethical limitations; Injections of hormones, conversations, electricity, rape, etc. Today, most "treatments" focus on making a person hate themselves and disgust themselves (not a difficult task, most people have a degree of self-hatred) and that doesn't work either (even their "successes" say that they did get married and that today they "control" themselves but are still attracted to members of their own sex) and there are also other terrible methods such as the complete separation of boys from their mothers and other things as far as the human imagination is concerned. It is also a complete lie that no studies are done on the subject. Research is being done and many of them have also been published on this site. Research is done for the simple reason that is true for most research, human curiosity. To date, none of the studies has been able to give an unequivocal answer.
You are also invited to try to study and research (please do the experiments on animals and not on humans as people like you usually do) but even if you succeed in producing a miracle pill (unlikely, until now scientists have fallen behind in simpler tasks that we understand better) still probably most people They will refuse to use it and that will be their full right.
Ask yourself, would you agree to take such a medicine? A medicine that will control your personal impulses so that they conform to the social or religious norms of society. For example, a drug that prevents you from being attracted to any woman except your wife (for the sake of it, the drug will contain the DNA of the woman only she will be able to continue) or if you divorce or are single, you will receive a drug that will prevent any sexual urge at all until you marry again. Sounds fun right?
to Nostradamus
Researchers show that there are also changes in the structure of the brain between men and women as well as between men with feminine tendencies and straight men.
It is not something that can be cured. And why do you even think it needs to be cured?
Do we need to cure all people who have any attraction that is different from the average? For example (precisely for tall women? or for thin women?, or for fat women?) so that everyone will be in the pattern that you determine or that the clergy determined?
Religious and dictatorial leaders are very comfortable with everyone being in a pattern that is convenient for them - dressed the same, praying five/three times a day, eating what is allowed, and so on... because it is much easier to control a herd that all behave exactly the same.
Really what does all this political correctness have to be?
Accepting the different and all this bullshit. I'm telling you it all started when they started getting the "right-handed decorations" what today they call "left-handed", the correct name is a right-hand decoration with a crippled right hand. Because that's what they are, people with disabilities! But today they try to tell them that they are fine and that they are even special. Today if you tell them you are disabled they will lynch you. Not only are they told that they are in order, they are also matched with objects for the use of the hand Shmuel. thus encouraging them to continue not to change. (The most extreme example is the Israeli Tabor rifle which is adapted for use with two hands. It is so against the way of nature!) It's not that I'm a malophobe, but I think that they should be taken care of and helped to change (perhaps as someone here suggested finding a test for birth defects so that it would be possible to kill them before that they are born) also not to be confused by the fact that they cannot be changed. My grandfather was born left-handed and was simply beaten at school every time he wrote with the left and today, God willing, he writes with the right. I also have no problem with people writing in whatever hand they want in private rooms but not in the public space! It encourages more children to have this disability. How is it not clear to people that this is against nature. There is an adapter piece 95% of people use mainly right hand.
Nostradamus
"The purpose of man is reproduction, everything else is unnatural"
Maybe you see yourself and your children as just the fruit of the herd.
This is the worst reason to have children. It is true that there is always some egocentric dimension, but still, just for reproduction, it is excessive. A person who has children should do it out of a desire to give them love, it doesn't matter which gender he is attracted to
Dvir
Homophobia like yours only leads to suffering and cruelty. I'm sure you also think that disabled people should not walk the streets, the deaf are not allowed to perform a bar mitzvah ceremony and women are not allowed to give testimony...
Dvir,
I wonder, in exactly which previous cultures the attempt to have fun with alternatives to the idea of "male and female created them" has already been tried and ended very badly? I, personally, know several companies where the choice was limited by many other things that are not only whether the choice hurts the other and where there was no "trend" of "everything is allowed" and these attempts ended very, very badly. Don't forget that today you made a decision, you determine what deviates from the norms and should not be allowed in a normative society, but you never know who will decide that it is their job to determine this tomorrow. Want to take that risk?
A,
You took the words out of my mouth. Excellent response.
Why cry?
The whole subject of sexual orientations/deviations is heavily involved in worldview and human morality, and it doesn't matter from which position you come.
Personally, I believe that a person's right to his body and his actions at the door of his mother's door is complete, but with regard to the public space and social status, deviations from normative sexuality cannot and must not be legitimized under any circumstances, because we all see the results in Europe and Western culture: if "everything is allowed" then childbirth is a terrible regression And entire nations, for their culture, are simply on the brink of extinction in the next two hundred years.
A normal human society is built only on the idea of "male and female created them", any attempt to play with alternatives will be in possession of a social experiment that has already been done and ended "very badly" in several previous cultures.
Since this is a forum of "thinking people" it is likely that rationality will be disconnected from political correctness and emotions and there will be a sweeping understanding that the sentence "The only relevant question is whether the 'choice' harms the other" is noel, because we all live in the same society and when you have opened the door to a trend that eats away at the essence of human perception, it is only the beginning of the end
My father, and these genetic and physical problems are not a disease and something that should be tried to be treated and also discovered before birth and not normalized and encouraged as in our morally sick society? No one said that homosexuality is a mental illness, but it is definitely not natural even if it is a genetic disease. The purpose of man is reproduction. Everything else is unnatural, like Down syndrome and autism.
Pretty ridiculous article, criticizing the article with partial and even more confused quotes from a collection of professors. That's how it is, they don't like to hear critics. The problem is that no serious research on the subject will be funded on the part of the LGBT people who will indeed discover some abnormality, and that it might be possible to "treat" it one day. The claim that it is "just like that" and accept me, is illogical and unfounded
"There is no scientific evidence to support the view that sexual orientation is a fixed, innate biological trait."
There is 'only' a 95% correlation between biological sex and sexual orientation. Indeed - correlation is not causation - but it is a piece of correlation.
I saw a documentary on one of the science channels about studies done in England where they found that what determines sexual orientation and gender is not the XX XY genes but the mother's hormones during pregnancy.
They found that after traumas such as wars for many women, children were born with unclear and opposite sexual orientations, to the point where children were born with bisexual genitalia and even a woman was born with a complete reproductive system but with the genes of a man - this woman was discovered in one of the Olympics that she carries the genes of an XY man Instead of XX (and was disqualified because of that) but she had a full and functioning reproductive system of a woman and she even got married and gave birth to children after that.
In short, after such clear and decisive proofs, I don't understand how there are still those who claim that this is a psychological disorder / moral problem, etc.
On the other hand, out of the darkness of certain countries in the south of the United States, where the theory of evolution is not taught and instead they are taught creationism, and where there are still "scientists" or "pseudo-scientists" who claim that HIV is not a virus but the result of a certain behavior... no wonder that every now and then some strange light appears such a
Response is awaiting confirmation
The "legitimacy" or "justification" of a tendency is unrelated and should not be linked to the question of whether a tendency is innate or acquired. And even if it is purchased, this does not make it a "choice".
The only question that is relevant to the legitimacy of a tendency is whether it harms another.
If it is between two mature people without exploitation by either party, everything else is irrelevant and in my opinion, only this is what the enlightened scholar should focus on and the discussion should not be allowed to go to other places.
The "legitimacy" or "justification" of a sexual orientation is not related and should not be linked to the question of whether the orientation is innate or acquired. And even if it is purchased, this does not make it a "choice".
The only question that is relevant to the legitimacy of a tendency is whether it harms another.
If it is between two mature people without exploitation by either party, everything else is irrelevant and in my opinion, only this is what the enlightened scholar should focus on and the discussion should not be allowed to go to other places.
The "legitimacy" or "justification" of a sexual orientation is not related and should not be linked to the question of whether a tendency is innate or acquired. And even if it is purchased, this does not make it a "choice".
The only question that is relevant to the legitimacy of a tendency is whether it harms another.
If it is between two mature people without exploitation by either party, everything else is irrelevant and in my opinion, only this is what the enlightened scholar should focus on and the discussion should not be allowed to go to other places.