Before I start I would like to ask those of you who are so inclined to say a little prayer for a friend of mine who was recently involved in a motorcycle accident down in Napier, and who has subsequently needed to have part of his right leg amputated. He’s normally a positive, confident chap but I cannot even begin to imagine how you start dealing with this.
Anyway, a short one today. Part of my daily routine involves reading the morning newspaper, or more accurately, the sports section. Earlier in the week after exhausting every article that dealt with football, I decided to have a quick browse over the other sections and came across this article. It’s an interesting especially if you take your time and scroll through some of the comments in response to the article.
Personally I don’t buy into some schools of thought out there that say you’re born gay. It’s a lifestyle choice isn’t it? A combination of upbringing, societal norms and pressures, emotions and feelings. Some event in ones life that turns you away from the opposite sex. Something must drive it though as it has been with us through the ages. I’m sure it’s all been gone over before, so happy article reading.
100+ COMMENT ALERT!! 100+ COMMENT ALERT!!
Genetic evidence suggests otherwise. I’d suggest reading some science done in the past 20 years or so. Evidence is beautiful.
So they’ve found the “gay gene” have they, fishe? Will that be one of the defects we can use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to weed out?
I believe it is possible that one’s genes could make one more disposed to being attracted to people of the same sex.
Some people’s genes make them more susceptible to being an Alcoholic.
Choosing to drink or to have sex or the associated life-style is clearly a choice though.
The mistake is to say genes determine your life-style choices.
Rosjier: agree.
So Rosjier, are you of the school of thought that gayness is a ‘disease’ that can be cured? If you could target the gene that predisposes someone to be gay, would you ‘fix’ it?
Let’s be honest, your worldview holds that your God created everyone, so he clearly created gay people. If he didn’t want people to be gay, why did he create them that way?
KA
Will keep your friend in our prayers.
It’s a lifestyle choice isn’t it?
Not according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church it isn’t, no.
The theological term “objectively disordered” means disordered wrt its object (sex outside marriage which is closed to conception).
I expect that both genetics and environment influence sexuality.
God Bless
It is quite clear that there is a significant hereditary component to sexual orientation. Just like there is with schizophrenia, clinical depression, chemical dependence etc.
Nothing is caused purely by genes, and no one is suggesting (beyond media hype) anything like a “gay gene” – that just doesn’t even make sense in genetic terms. All our development is a result of genes and environmental factors – from the prenatal environment to early life and adolescence. It also makes massive intuitive sense that sexual orientation would be strongly genetic given its importance to the organism in terms of reproduction – it is what we’re made to do essentially.
It is patently ridiculous to suggest orientation is just a choice. That displays a complete ignorance of developmental biology. Obviously there are many complex social and environmental factors involved in a person choosing a particular orientation as if it’s a one-or-the-other choice such as our society often imposes. However, our physiology is ignorant of any such binary distinction, instead operating more on a continuum of orientation.
Therefore, as Rosjier suggests, a predisposition, based on a continuum of intensity, to male or female sexual orientation exists. Rosjier then relates this to a commonly believed negative predisposition: alcoholism. Of course we could also relate it to a predisposition to maths ability leading a person to become a mathematician, or one to athletic ability leading one to become a sportsperson.
The question is, do we restrict people in “living out” their natural tendencies? I’m sure many here will argue that homosexuality is damaging to society and hence should be restricted. That is a much more valid argument, even if I don’t agree with it, than silly ideas like “it’s just a choice!”
(This is Ro’s brother)
Meth – the most important question is where does your idea, or your desire, for homosexuality to be non-biologically derived come from? Self-evidence or ‘feeling’ is really one of the most devastating tools we can employ. Does this idea impart the mercy of God to others, or does it allow one to carry a certain sense of righteousness?
To the others, the notion that a single gene is responsible for something as dynamic as sexuality is just a fallacy and a straw-man arguement piled on top of each other. If you want to use modern scientific lanugage then homo/hetero orientation stems from an interactionist origin. That simply means that our genes cause us to interact with our environment differently, and our environment actually alters gene expression, which in turn leads us to alter our interaction with out environment and so on in a loop that becomes very difficult to weed out one or the other as each are important.
Here is just one small example, if one twin is homosexual the chance the other twin is also homosexual is dramatically higher if they are identical rather than fraternal.
Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters
* 48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
Maybe Slightly off thread but welcome home to sunny NZ Chris
Nicely said Rosjier’s brother.
howdy people, long time no speak !!
yes, of course there could be something in someone’s biological makeup that produces a predisposition in somebody’s conditioning, which would lend itself to and combine with other life experiences, to mean that a person might develop a psychological and sensitive (at the level of the their sensitivity) attraction to somebody of the same sex.
i do not think that the question is “do we restrict people from living it out” – by asking that you’re missing an important step before looking at the societal effects. before considering the effects to society, we need to ask what the human being is, and for what he/she lives, and exists?
in my opinion, the questions are:
what is the truth about the human person? what are we for? what is our sexuality and sensual dimension for? what are the natural ends of men and women? at the vegetative levels? at their sensitive/sensual levels? at the their spiritual/personal levels (intelligence and will)? what allows a person to flourish? what will make them happy?
to answer these questions properly, we don’t just measure statistically, or just observe phenomena, or look at societal trends
i have to run
peace people
ciao !
Kudos for Chris for posting that extract from the catechism, laying out what the church actually teaches can only help us have an intelligent discussion!
I’m a monogamous heterosexual. (It’s a great conversation opener)
For me monogamy is a decision based on principle, whereas heterosexuality feels more akin to being left handed. After all I could choose to stop being monogamous, but how would I go about choosing to experience attraction for, and fall in love with, members of my own sex? I can’t change my sexuality. Can anyone? I’m glad to see the catechism, contra Methuselah’s beard recognises this.
I can understand why the church is a strong advocate of monogamy, but can someone explain why homosexuality is regarded as ‘objectively disordered’? I really don’t see why.
I should have said that I’m aware that homosexual sex can’t lead to the creation of new life, and the church defines the purpose of sex as procreation. But sex can also be physical expression of love, and homosexual sex can fulfill that purpose. Why does the church insist that it is immoral to have sexual relations without the possibility of procreation? And to say that sex is ‘for’ procreation does not constitute a moral argument.
It is a difficult debate to have in a culture that is obsessed with sex. Our culture says ’sex is normal; not having sex is abnormal’. Our church says ’sex is normal, but its place is as the glue that holds married couples together, and outside of marriage it is not normal’.
I’ve been reading some research into the ‘glue’ chemicals: the chemicals that flood the brain at orgasm. These are oxytocin (the so-called cuddle hormone – also produced during breast-feeding) and vasopressin (which is thought to support the pair-bond by making males aggressive to other males and affectionate to their partner). Men whose capacity for vasopressin reception is impaired show lower levels of satisfaction, affection and cohesion.
These hormones are found in other animals that pair-bond – interestingly, such high levels are not found in animals that don’t pair bond.
It is reasonable to hypothesise, therefore, that we are a pair-bonding species, while acknowledging that there are some individuals whose ability to pair bond is impaired.
Estrogen enhances the effects of oxytocin, while testosterone mutes them. At the same time, there’s evidence that lovers do respond to estrogen- and testosterone-related compounds in each others’ saliva and sweat.
Therefore, two women who are lovers get an extra dose of oxytocin-enhancing estrogen, and that extra estrogen could make their reaction to oxytocin stronger. Two men, on the other hand, might feel less effects, due to the testosterone interchange, as well as their own natural testosterone.
Interestingly, there is at least one study that shows that homosexual men with AIDS have lower levels of the two hormones than those without AIDS. Is this cause, or effect?
I don’t disagree that there may be a something in your make up that predisposes you towards the same sex, but I do not think there is such a thing as a gay gene (which is perhaps how I should have phrased it at the start).
Homosexuality is not a ‘gender’ in itself ;it is a subset of heterosexuality otherwise better desribed as heterosexuals with Same Sex Attraction! (SSA)
It is wrong to say someone is heterosexual or homosexual as if that differentiates one from the other.
JJS
Homosexual Acts are unnatural as there is no procreative ‘complimentarity and I would suggest no physiological complimentarity either
they are also immoral because they are opposed to Gods creative purposes in creating man and woman and the right order that he intended.
It should be treated the same as any other dysfuntional inclination; with charity, dignity and compassion but to say it is right is a lie.
I think trying to justify homosexuality by saying it’s ok because some people are just predisposed to it is a bit of a cop out. That’s like saying it’s ok to be addicted to alcohol / drugs / sex / crime because something in your make-up means you trend towards those things. It just removes any human responsibility from the action.
If it’s just a genetic disorder, then shouldn’t it be approached like any other disorder? As a trial you work through? I accept it’s something you don’t cure, like you’re never going to be completely cured of say alcoholism, or Tiger Woods-ism, and I’m not saying you have to eliminate or cure it. But maybe, like the guy in the article, it’s just something you have to live through without ‘practising’ for lack of a better word.
J. Papist you said,
Why does the Church say that? Normality carries no moral weight in and of itself
What moral / ethical arguments does the church have to back up the view that homosexuality is ‘objectively disordered’?
The ‘purpose’ of sex is procreation.. so what? no moral argument there. Homosexuality isn’t normal.. so what? The only appropriate context for sex is heterosexual marriage… why?
A Christian friend referred me to the following passage from St Paul (1 Corinthians 6:9-11,NIV)
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”
This tells us that Paul regarded homosexuality as wrong… but he never (in this epistle or any other) does the hard work of actually arguing a moral case against homosexuality, he simply asserts that it is immoral, why should we take him seriously since he doesn’t back up his position?
If the Catholic church wants to assert that homosexuality is ‘obectively disordered’ then they should give us a strong moral case… and yet none has been offered in 2000 years
JJS – if you take religion and morality out of it and look at it from an evolutionary point of view, what purpose does homosexuality serve? It doesn’t lead towards to propogation or continuity of a species, it doesn’t appear to serve any function besides personal gratification. This could be what led to the thinking that it was intrinsically immoral. And there may be something in Jewish law / custom that also forms the basis of that passage from St. Paul, but I can’t really comment on that.
Homosexuality serves no evolutionary purpose, but that is not grounds for moral condemnation. Homosexuals fall in love just like straight people do, and if they choose to share their lives together I think it is more than ‘personal gratification’. It is not merely a form of sex it is a legitimate form of love and deserves our respect.
Paul was of course a devout Jew living under Roman occupation, of course he regarded Greco-Roman influence as depraved. His condemnation of homosexuality was simply a part of his rejection of Greek / Roman values.
JJS, I’ve just reread your comments.
The catechism explains why it regards homosexual sex as objectively (or intrinsically) disordered – that is, directed to the wrong object. At the same time, it provides some explanation for the purpose of sex. There are three elements, not just openness to life, which is the middle one, but also the natural law and complimentarity.
Natural law is not – as Fishe has assumed – about what happens in nature, but is a working out in Christian thinking of a Greek philosophy that rules for right living can be developed through rational thinking. In these pre-individualistic times, the natural law was seen to be that which allows us to live in harmony with one another.
DV, you’ve made the point about procreative complimentarity, but I think the Catechism, by making complimentarity a separate point, is far more focused on physiological, psychological and spiritual complimentarity – the full phrase is ‘a general affective and sexual complimentarity’.
Here’s the catechism again:
I’ve talked in my comment above (15) about how sex works to cement a pair bond in those whose hormones are working normally. That is just one example of how complimentarity works – the exchange of hormones with a woman heightens a man’s ability to bond.
So apart from promising fidelity and permanence (two of the three requirements of a sacramental marriage), a marriage needs to be: open to procreation, consistent with the teachings of God and the needs of human society, and between two people of complimentary sexes.
complementary
nice response JP *thumbs up smiley that is not available*
JJS
it is difficult to argue morals with you as you seem to have no moral threshold that we can debate from. This is always a problem if you dont acknowledge rules for living handed down from a higher authority or at least acknowledge that we are accountable for our behaviour to a higher being.
Do you accept perhaps that we should all strive to be the best persons we can possibly be?
Do you have a moral bar that is indicative of unaccepatable standards?
Nobody has answered my question. If God created us all, he created homosexuality too. Are you saying that God was wrong or that he made a mistake? Surely God knew when He created us that some of us would turn out to be homosexuals? How can that be wrong if your God is omniscient?
KA
KA, your question is just another go at the “if God is omnipotent why doesn’t He fix things so they don’t go wrong” question, which has been answered a number of times.
All of us have gifts and challenges. We can all make the most of the gifts and live with the challenges.
The church teaches that acting on homosexual urges is a sin. Being a homosexual is just one of those differences that makes life more difficult. I have a genetic disorder that has killed a number of my relatives and will probably eventually kill me. Someone else is born short of an arm. Someone else is blind from birth. You say, “Blame God.” I say, “Trust God.” He didn’t cause the environmental conditions that have made this particular genetic tendency so prevalant and so damaging; people did.
And I can see how my particular challenge has made me a stronger, more resilient person, so (while I’d certainly walk away from it if I had a choice), I don’t regret it.
Therefore, the challenge for homosexuals is to live a life of chastity, as it is for anyone who is not married. It is neither biblical nor Catholic to put more emphasis on homosexual incontinence than on heterosexual incontinence.
KA:
Nobody has answered my question. If God created us all, he created homosexuality too. Are you saying that God was wrong or that he made a mistake? Surely God knew when He created us that some of us would turn out to be homosexuals? How can that be wrong if your God is omniscient?
Begging the question. In the sense you mean, God created haemophilia. But haemophilia is not just one normal way of having blood; it is a failure of the blood to be normal.
If homosexuality is disordered, then of course it is not just another normal form of sexuality; it is a failure of normal sexuality in that person. Whether it is genetic – as haemophilia is – or a result of environment – as many forms of Freudianism propose – or the result of habits persisted in – is irrelevant.
It doesn’t settle the matter whether homosexuality is disordered or not. Your statement presupposes its normality; then seeks to draw an absurd conclusion about God (God – by definition – being perfect – would have created something imperfect). Ergo, a perfect God must not exist.
That the world is in many ways both imperfect (incomplete) and actually disordered (not only homosexuality but haemophilia) is itself one of the hard problems – but it is only a hard problem if (a perfect) God exists. If there is no such God, then there are no problems whatsoever. And there is no point in arguing about the existence of God, or about anything else. Indeed, there is no point in anything. Whatever is – is. So what?
The Marquis de Sade saw this quite clearly.
jj
JJ;
yes well said and also……..
God actually created us perfect but with free will
Adam and Eve in succumbing to their human nature and tempted by the devil, broke that covenant and that is when things went awry.
By JJS logic God also created alcoholism which has also been shown to be associated with genetic propensity. Do we also offer our alcoholic friends a whiskey as this is the way they were ‘made’ and the ‘decisions’ that they have affirmed.
Is it compassion to encourage something that will harm?
SSA afflicted people need our love and support to be truly happy and fulfilled not false charity that condemns them to unhappiness.
As always we can look at the underlying things behind any ideas of morality or what is disordered or not. In this case, as sexual orientation is such a significant and deeply emotional characteristic, it would make sense that humans would have a strong reaction to those who go against this norm. In short, in all respects we find it hard to accept differences to our own ingroup, and in the case of sexuality, we find it even harder.
This type of thinking explains the intensity of the views. And also how cultural constructs like religion have been used to put walls up against nearly all non statistically ‘normal’ sexual behaviour. This is basically coming up with arguments to rationalise and legitimise a deep psychological fear/mistrust/anger/etc towards those different from oneself.
Joyful Papist…
Thanks for posting more info on the Catholic position. I have some thoughts but first I want to make sure I understood you right. This is what I took from your post…… We use reason (and grace?) to discern what is in accordance with natural law. With respect to sex we find that its purpose is procreation, a new life is the immeasurable good that can come from sex. On the other hand sex can result in great harm, e.g. sexual abuse within a family. Heterosexual marriage is the context for sex which will be in accordance with its purpose and produce the greatest good. We know this through both revelation and reason……..
Is that about right?
Dei Verbum… re your comments:
I suppose it’s fair to say that it’s not straightforward to work out what moral views I hold in the sense that since you are a Catholic I can guess that you regard contraception as wrong. Whereas you don’t know my view as I haven’t told you what it is. However I do believe that human beings have an innate moral sense, and I have some sympathy for the idea of ‘natural law’. We differ in that I’m not sure about a divine lawgiver. And my answer to your two questions is yes. Happy to debate morality without God but it might be off topic!!
Question begging!!!! Alcoholism, homosexuality, intelligence, and musical ability all have a genetic component. The question is what moral judgement we make about them. I don’t accept your premise that homosexuality can be equated with alcoholism as a disease or disorder.
John J,
To use the word disordered you have to also supply a context, as it can only ever be relative.
We could easily define being female as a disorder, or being dark skinned.
What an absolutely patently absurd statement.
JJS, close but no cigar! Logic, experience and the Church tell us that sex is both for creating children and for maintaining the relationship between the couple – procreative and unitative. A new life is only one of the goods that can come from sex. If we go much further we’re going to get into the whole theology of the body, the maintenance of society, and the position of a couple (and any offspring) as ‘the domestic church’. (Possibly other things I haven’t thought of, too.)
Point taken!! If we add those things you mentioned, and I accept that there are likely to be more potential goods and harms than we’ve covered I think I’ve got the gist of the position?
Almost – just one last proviso. We’re talking not just about sex in marriage, but sex properly used, between two people who love and respect one another.
That’s it. I agree you have the gist of what I understand to be the Church’s position.
JJS,
The Church teaches that the proper ends of sex are both procreation and union, and that it is harmful to people to intentionally separate the two (sex without love is damaging as is sex intentionally modified to render it infertile).
Why does the church insist that it is immoral to have sexual relations without the possibility of procreation?
Because her experience of thousands of years of human families involving billions of people is that modifying love making to render it infertile is damaging to the people involved. This is readily apparent when considering the medical side effects of chemical contraceptives or the physical side effects of barrier methods (condoms etc).
The Church doesn’t actually insist that it is immoral to have sexual relations without the possibility of procreation : she allows love making in marriage when the couple are infertile and when the couple choose to make love during the infertile days of the woman’s monthly cycle.
What the Church is opposed to is artificially modifying the act of making love in marriage to intentionally render it infertile.
God Bless
but of course homosexuality was a disorder until recent times…..
“…..the 1973 removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The reasoning given by the American Psychiatric Association for removal of homosexuality from the DSM states, in part:
“Homosexuality per se is a form of sexual behavior and, with other forms of sexual behavior which are not by themselves psychiatric disorders, are not listed in this nomenclature.”
the change in fact was driven by gay activists and had no basis in science. There were therapies for correcting behaviour and this was no different from other treatments for dysfunctional isses. Now that homosexuality has been ‘normalised’ there is no incentive or motivation to understand what causes and effects this condition has and our understanding of it has not developed as it should. (and due to activist presure likely wont)
The relationship between faith and reason has been separated and it is the agenda of gay extremists to do this.
It is no coincidence that other sexual disorders such as lesbianism, paediophillia *********** are also now striving for the same acceptance as normal behaviour and an expresion of individuality
JJS
have you read “Theology of the Body” by JPII (the great!) it really is the best work explaining sexuality in modern terms and in the embodiment of the Churchs teaching over 2000 years!
BTW
I hearthere is a course on theology of the body for teenagers coming up in Auckland but does anyone have details?
Paedophilia involves issues of exploitation, and the impossibility of informed consent, and of course I could go on. The abuse of children by adults is a terrible thing and not at all what we’re discussing. Paedophilia is morally distinct and it’s a cheap shot to throw it in. On this thread we’ve had homosexuals compared to alcoholics and haemophiliacs, sure it’s tasteless but I suppose it’s par for the course, however that comment really does go too far.
JJS
I do not mean to offend any readers dealing with these issues so please excuse the bluntness
but you are being precious. I was not being offensive or homophobic, just ‘being frank’!
Put simply;
Paedophillia is an example of sexually immature men who havent developed mature sexual responses and identify only with similarly ‘aged’ immature grouping. I do not pretend to understand this sick behaviour but it might interest you to know that many paedophiles believe that their victims do give ‘informed consent’.
My understanding is that homosexual men are attracted to the same sex due to issues and inappropriate development in their own upbring and experiences. (lesbianism has a distinctly different cause).This is often a normal transitional stage in a young mans development. It can also be triggered by abuse and seduction. If this tendency is acted out it becomes imprinted as ‘normal’ behaviour.
This is the danger in the normalisation of homosexuality especially to our young men as they are now being discouraged from working through what is actually normal transitional behaviour and denied the opportunity to complete their development into truly happy, fulfilled, heterosexual men.
Your assertion that somehow homosexuality infers ‘informed consent’ is hollow given that the debate as to whether homsexuality has validity has been hijacked by political correctness and gay activist propaganda.
As for exploitation as with say prostitution every homosexual act involves the expolitation of another. Informed consent is ‘arguable’ (and at least misguided and deluded) given the lack of understanding of the causes of the condition, hence my association of homosexuality with paedophilia.
To not be prepared to speak the truth is false charity and against the 8th commandment (”you shall not bear false witness aginst your neighbour”)
Pray for healing!
JJS – no one is comparing homosexuals to alcoholics or haemophiliacs. What was brought up was that homosexuality may be attributable to a genetic disorder, or that the way some people’s genes are made up predisposes them towards members of the same sex. This is then compared to similar disorders where someones genes may predispose them towards excessive consumption of alcohol, or where your blood is a bit thinner than normal. What’s so wrong with haemophiliacs anyway that will cast aspersions on homosexuals if they’re compared to them?
fishe:
John J,
To use the word disordered you have to also supply a context, as it can only ever be relative.
We could easily define being female as a disorder, or being dark skinned.
We could, but it would not make them so. It is, after all, a question of fact. Homosexuality is not disordered because I, or anyone else, defines it so. It is disordered – the Church recognises this but does not make it so by that recognition. It is disordered for a number of reasons – first and foremost because, simply looking at things from a purely biological point of view, sex is oriented toward procreation. Homosexuality is inherently sterile. If there is any genetic inclination to homosexuality, it is a genetic aberration.
jj
and any heterosexuality can be disordered if normal sexual development is affected by unheathy influence for example self gratification and pornography are dangerous to a young mind still sorting out its wiring.
fetishes and other abortions suggest similar stunted growth or corruption.
JJ,
Yup, by that definition of procreation it is disordered (even though homosexuals are obviously not sterile and can still reproduce). But what does that mean exactly to say something is a genetic aberration? What do we do with that knowledge?
I take the view that we shouldn’t be viewing deviations from the “genetic norm” as disordered with any negative value judgements placed upon them. I’d argue that the very processes that cause the variation that leads to these abnormalities are the same processes that have allowed all species to develop and adapt to environments – i.e. allows us to exist today.
that last line should have been other ‘aberrant behavior’
fishe
and has led to disintegration of many civilisatins as immoral behaviour undermined the fabric of society ? for example the decadance a depravity of Roman empire
you’re kidding right?
JJS;
are those scales on your eyes or just blinkers!
Fishe, are you talking about evolution in your last post? Because if you are, what advantages for a species do you see in having homosexual relationships that do not have any possibility of procreation? I just don’t see any evolutionary advantage in that.
in fact homosexual relationships in nature have been observed but simply point to the same dysfunctional issues.
Sonny,
You’ve lost me a bit. I was talking about changes in species, so yeah obviously evolution. But uhmm…not sure how your question relates to what I said.
A few bits though…
1. selection has no effect on non-hereditary components of sexuality
2. gays still have children (especially considering sexuality is a continuum – not gay or straight binary)
3. genes associated with homosexuality could have other useful benefits – e.g. in bonobos homosexual interactions can lead to greater troupe bonding. Or perhaps more indirect benefits – e.g. traits associated with homosexuality, if expressed less strongly, may form important social functions to contribute to the success of the species
Dei,
Do The Gays destroy the sanctity of marriage in chimp communities as well?!
I dont know; does the sanctity of marriage exit in a chimp community?….. your area of interest I think?
We’re not chimps, and we’re not bonobos, either. Unlike both, our brain chemistry is that found in pair bonding species. Because we are able to act contrary to our instincts, it has taken a while for science to catch up with the Church on this one. But if you ignore the aberrant behaviour and just look at the chemistry, we’re pair bonders. And the Church has an explanation for the aberrant behaviour, too – it’s called “free will”.
Of course the church in its wisdom and compassion will help those afflicted by this disorder with “disinterested friendship, prayer, and sacramental grace”?
Attribution, JJS?
Good old C. Hitchens, I also keep that reminder in mind when I come across ‘neo’- Marxist writers.
Nice to have context, JJS.
Of course, when Hitchens is remembering ‘how they behaved’ he’s implicitly ignoring those who have offered solidarity, prayer, friendship and sheer hard work – focusing on Torquemanda and not Peter Chanel or Damian of Molokai.
J. Papist
Well I haven’t forgotten people like St Vincent de Paul, Dorothy Day, Suzanne Aubert, and so forth. But as well as a history of individuals there is the institutional history. The history of the ‘capital c’ Church from conversion of Constantine* for the next 1500 years is an object lesson in the danger of an institution that combines moral certainty with immense power. That’s why I’m sceptical about the tolerant, sympathetic, official, remarks the church makes about homosexuality. I’m not unaware of how things were when homosexuality was openly called an ‘abomination’, and dealt with as such. Tolerance seems to be in inverse proportion to strength when it comes ideological movements.
*Would it be cheeky to call it the ‘conversion of the church to Roman imperialism’?
To return to the point of the original post, a lot of homosexual behaviour seems not so much about same sex attraction as about sexual addiction.
Questions:
Why do koala bears have human type venereal disease?
What’s the punchline to the Australian joke about the name of the Southland farmer’s girlfriend?
How do prisoners, soldiers and other men in all male environments cope with celebacy?
If a man wants lots of sex with strangers, no strings attached, no money changing hands, other men are probably a better bet, even now after 50 years of sexual revolution.
Back to brain chemistry. Basically, the only two ways short of addictive drugs to give our brain a dopamine kick are super-nice food and sexual stimuli. And today, there is heaps of good food and plenty of sexual stimuli available.
JJS, I don’t buy that you can separate out any individuals and call the rest the institutional Church. The individuals are part of the picture.
The abuses – and boy have there been abuses – were typical of their times. When the Church behaved like everyone else, it behaved badly. What kept the Church from being worse, what changed it and civilisation as a whole over time, was the extraordinary individuals we call saints.
To point the figure at the institution rather than at other temporal powers of the time – the great Khanates come to mind, or the Ottoman Empire – is, in another sense, quite fair; we claim to be better than that. However, we also acknowledge that we are a church of sinners. But we are also a church of saints.
What about those homosexuals who have stable relationships that last for decades?
I did say “a lot”.
There is some research that suggests that gay relationships benefit from acceptance of outside sex – one study found that in 100% of gay relationships over 5 years one or both partners have had external sexual partners. The study was criticised because it made a comparison with married people (75% of men fully monogamous and 87% of women) instead of with heterosexuals living together.
Is the author of this book arguing for enduring love over a cycle of dopamine hits with ever diminishing returns? If she is I agree! But are you trying to link the pleasure seeking, especially in the absence of a strong relationship, with homosexuality per se?? That I don’t see, couldn’t this be applied equally to both straights and homosexuals?
I don’t care what anyone says there’s just something cute about a Koala with an STD. Poor little guys!!
JJS, the author is arguing for enduring love as you suggest.
No, I’m not trying to link pleasure seeking with homosexuality. On the contrary, I’m suggesting that a lot of homosexual behaviour is pleasure seeking masked as homosexuality.
That is, I agree with Fishe’s continuum from people who are attracted only to people of their own gender, through people who are attracted to both men and women, to people who are attracted only to people of the complementary gender.
But I’m adding a large category off to one side, called people who are attracted to sex per se, and who will take it wherever available.
As far as I’m aware, heterosexual sex has nothing to compare with the bathhouse scene (not free, anyhow).
This, I think, provides an answer to the ‘recovered homosexual’ question that started the whole thread; someone who is addicted to the dopamine rush of casual relationships may well recover.
(On this brain chemistry argument, Lesbians are more likely to form stable relationships because of the double oxytocin effect.)
…
Then there is the question of whether, like many pair bonding species, we imprint on our first sexual partner.
JP:
I love how you’re keen to bring in the brain side of things, floats my boat. However, we have to be very careful when talking of ‘dopamine rushes’ and pleasure seeking etc. in relation to sex. First, dopamine is far more complex than a mere pleasure chemical that is increased in response to pleasurable activities. Second, sexual activity involves many other neurotransmitter systems in the brain – most of which are poorly understood.
But yes, in simple terms, sex causes dopamine release. But so does cake, seeing a cherished friend, and watching a good movie. Also, psychomotor stimulants like methamphetamine cause dopamine release well in excess of any naturally occurring stimulus and involve other mechanisms of subverting the system – so comparisons with drugs, and analogies of chemical dependence/addiction are problematic.
What we can say is that there are people who are more likely to engage in risky and/or pleasure-seeking behaviour. These people have lower basal levels of dopamine functioning and often differences in dopamine receptors in the brain as well (these go hand-in-hand). They’re more likely to smoke, drink more, do harder drugs, gamble, and have more sexual partners. Caveat: this is a relatively vague population of people, it’s hard to really pin it all down to a chemical basis – it’s always more complex.
So where I’m going with this is that it seems it could be wise to separate “pleasure seeking” behaviour from sexuality. I.e. the desire to seek more sex is dissociable from orientation. This seems pretty self-evident, and there are likely social factors with The Gays that change the ball game a bit – e.g. more openness towards sex, a smaller community/sub-culture etc.
I guess your “large category off to one side, called people who are attracted to sex per se, and who will take it wherever available” category would comprise then of people near the centre of the orientation spectrum that also have greater pleasure seeking propensities.
I would also be very wary of your call that “someone who is addicted to the dopamine rush of casual relationships may well recover.” I’d say this is a bridge too far for the addiction/drug analogy and the characterture of dopamine.
I’m not sure whether you’re agreeing, Fishe, or disagreeing.
Yes, with human beings (because of free will) it is never just down to the chemicals. And yes, the interactions of different chemicals is complex, and I’ve simplified (perhaps oversimplified) to fit it into a blog comment. And yes, the research is young. But I think it is a very interesting field and well worth trying to understand.
RE your last point, the addiction/drug thing is not an analogy – or at least not in the view of some of the researchers in the field. In fact, they claim, it is precisely our pair-bonding propensities that make us susceptible to addiction to food, drugs etc. (D1 versus D2 receptors, to be technical.)
JP,
I’m agreeing in part, adding more info, and putting in caveats
Yeah, you’re right, over simplification of chemical interactions is fine for a general blog post. I can’t help but be pedantic about this stuff heh.
Out of interest: you got some links to some research for the pair-bonding link to addiction? I haven’t come across that literature.
http://www.reuniting.info/science for a summary.
Also, google pair-bonding addiction in the scholar section.
howdy peoples,
hope all is well in b-f land
i think that it is a huge mistake to reduce this discussion around homosexuality to a material biological scientific level: if we do that will never ever answer the questions satisfactorily
we can probably find some chemical reactions and genes and certain hormones (which are all at the material level in a person, at the level of the their body) in pedophiles which have (and have had) an influence on them
we could repeat the above statement for many types of sexual behaviour and orientation: heterosexuals, homosexuals, beastiality, polyamory, bi-sexuality, tri-sexuality, pedaphiles, ephebophiles, etc
does studying any person’s chemical makeup, answer whether they should act on their impulses and attractions?
simply discovering these chemical movements, and conditions, and elements does not really help us that much when it comes to ethical questions
these great scientific discoveries, are helpful, but they are only one dimension – and they are only at the material level
do they help us know whether a man should or should not have sex with a child? or with a beast? or with three other persons of different sex at the same time? or with another man?
all these scientific facts tell us is that such and such a man or woman has this particular prediposition, or influence, or attraction (at a material level) to this or that “type” or person, or “type” of act
modern-day science can’t tell us what human nature is. modern-day science, through all its wonderful techniques and stats, can’t tell what behaviour will bring deep happiness and flourishment to a person. it can’t tell us what, at a natural level, we are made for? what our deepest finality is…?
however, science (and common sense) can observe this very well known fact: a man and woman engaging in sex (without contraception) will have the potential to produce another little one, and therefore, will help the community (at the wider social level) to perpetuate
but when it comes to questions around the ethical value of homosexuality, beastiality, bi-sexuality, heterosexuality, etc… science has no no real competence. the ehitcal value of these tendencies, or acts, is not the “terms of reference” of science
these are ethical questions requiring a broader and deeper view of man and woman, incorporating all of her/his dimensions, not just chemical movements in the brain or body
science can only observe these movements, it cannot speak with any competence on the ethical value and effects of engaging in such acts, or following such impulses, or attractions
if you think that man and woman are only bodies, and no spirit, i.e., no intelligence, or free will, then of course you’ll think that materialistic science can answer all these important questions of our time
intelligence and free will are spiritual capacities beyond any quality of the matter that science studies.
one way to know this is to examine different experiences we have of thinking and loving. the fact that we can be faithful in love beyond the continual movements of our material body, and even when it is completely falling apart, we can still remain faithful in love to another spiritual person, is a great sign of a pricnicple in us which is not material, but spiritual. another sign of a spiritual principle in us is that fact that we can abstract, and think, engage in a process of thought. these are spiritual qualities beyond any material level.
although most positivistic scientists of today will try and explain these things from a material/chemical level – without really explaining anything. they might see certain infuences at the material level which effect the exercise of our intelligence and will, but they will not be able to measure the intelligence in itself or the will in itself
this is why a proper human philosophy, based and rooted in the reality of the human person, is required to answer these delicate, but important questions around homosexuality and other forms of human sexual orientation
peace brothers and sisters
ciao
JP,
Ta. Heh that reuniting.info site is a weird mix of science and woo, but does have some good journal refs.
Yes, Fishe, the writer says her husband provides the science and she provides the woo (not that she calls it that!). They must have some fun discussions over breakfast.
Dave Morgan, precisely.
We are not limited by our brain chemistry – we have free will.
But understanding what is happening in our brain might help us to set things up for better success at making moral choices. If we know that certain actions are going to set our dopamine receptors into gimme gimme mode we are going to be able to make the moral choice to avoid those actions.
Re the original article….
Methinks he might still be gayer than he would like to believe…….