- This topic has 197 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
jewishfeminist,
Scientists never thought the world was flat. Your point still stands, however, because scientists used to believe the Universe was infinitely large and that phlogiston was necessary for combustion.
Health, moi aussie: They found it in flies. They altered a gene and they made it so that a male fly would be attracted to male pheromones and genitalia.
Look, I’m not claiming that all homosexuals are Anusim who can’t help what they feel. There are certainly those who could go through therapy (and I mean normal therapy, not the obscene “reparative” therapy which amounts to nothing more than serious physical and sexual abuse) and come out heterosexual or at least able to repress their homosexual tendencies. However, we must realize that there are people who are born with no attraction to women and we must give them our full sympathy and not allow disdain for those who had a choice to disdain those who had no choice as well.
jewishfeminist
Where is that scientific study? Does it also determine that bestiality is not a choice?
A tayva is a choice. How do we know this? Because tayvas are controllable. Only things that can’t be controlled are not a choice.
moi aussi,
I think you post indicates what the nekudas hamachlokes is here. You are giving the word “choice” a very broad meaning. When I use the word “choice” I mean a conscious choice. Tayvas are certainly not conscious choices.
However, you are using the word choice to include “anything that can be prevented, no matter how difficult.” Even though a person does not, in the vast majority of cases, choose to have a tayva, a person is capable of working on themsevles so that they stop having certain tayvas in the future. It might be extremely difficult to change one’s character in such a fashion, but it is possible.
Thus under your definition past tayvas are not a choice but future tayvas are a choice.
Under my definition (and I believe that of jewishfeminist) no tayvas are a choice.
Correct. A tayva is not a choice; otherwise everyone would “choose” to get rid of all their tayvas! The choice is whether or not you act on your tayvas.
Google “Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality” for an article written by scientific researchers Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer.
Incidentally, the difference between bestiality and homosexuality is that one is a “fetish”, while the other is an overall orientation.
Scientists never thought the world was flat.
Because they didn’t know calculus. Every curve is made of an infinite number of flat surfaces. Therefore, the earth is flat, and curved, as it suits the argument.
And people have choice, or predestination, as it suits the argument.
Therefore, it would seem that there is very little point in arguing about what choices other people have. We can only know our own anyway.
Health- one of the most prominent xtian gay reparative therapy centers closed its doors and its leader issued an apology to the gay community for its treatment of them. Why would he do that? The liberal media?
Dr. Robert Spitzer, a noted psychiatrist recently apologized and recanted a study of his own that said that gay people can be cured with therapy? Why would he do that and tarnish his own scholarly reputation? The liberal media, I presume?
The research indicates that there are both genetic and environmental factors in causing homosexuality. There have been studies coming out on one side or the other and studies indicating that both genetics and environments play a role.
[of sexual orientation]
About JONAH, the RCA wrote this:
“Based on consultation with a wide range of mental health experts and therapists who informed us of the lack of scientifically rigorous studies that support the effectiveness of therapies to change sexual orientation, a review of literature written by experts and major medical and mental health organizations, and based upon reports of the negative and, at times, deleterious consequences to clients of some of the interventions endorsed by JONAH, the Rabbinical Council of America decided in 2011, as part of an overall statement on the Jewish attitude towards homosexuality, to withdraw its original letter referencing JONAH.”
heretohelp,
I don’t know what you are referring to in your first example, but Dr. Spitzer was always an advocate for the homosexual community (he was one of the people instrumental in getting it removed from the DSM).
In the 2000s Spitzer sought to study whether it was possible for some highly motivated individuals to change their orientation. He published a study concluding that it was possible but probably very rare. He was hit with a storm of criticism from both colleagues and the gay community (who felt Spitzer had betrayed them).
In 2012 Spitzer recanted the study on the grounds that the subjects were all self-reporting and there was no way for him to know if they were deceiving themselves or outright lying.
However, neither Spitzer nor anyone else has ever demonstrated that people cannot change sexual orientation. Rather they say that “reparative therapy” has never been demonstrated to work.
“All these studies are very weak, but the real research is Not PC as you can see from the following article…”
The article was written by a man named John-Henry Westen. Who is John-Henry Westen? A pro-life activist who runs his own news website. A failed political candidate. No scientific credentials whatsoever behind his unjustified and clearly biased attack on two renowned scientists.
Simon LeVay is a well-respected neuroscientist, educated at Cambridge and Harvard. He has had numerous articles published in scientific journals and has lectured at Stanford.
Dean Hamer is a well-respected geneticist, educated at Harvard. He was an independent researcher at NIH for years and has written three books.
Find me a real, reputable scientist who disagrees with these men– and has hard evidence to back it up– and then we’ll talk.
jewishfeminist,
As I noted above, there are studies on both sides of the issue. The twin studies indicate that there are both genetic and environtmental factors. Even LeVay and Hamer don’t claim that it is all biological.
The LeVay and Hamer piece doesn’t really speak that much to the causes of homosexuality. Rather it speaks to practicing homosexuals having differences in their brains than heterosexuals. There is no indication of cause and effect, and LeVay and Hamer don’t claim that their findings showed a genetic cause, or that homosexuals are “born that way.”
Furthermore, other researchers (William Byne’s team) have not found statistically significant differences in the INAH3. LeVay and Hamer’s study itself involved quite a small sample size.
Finally, if you are going to call bias, it is only fair that you mention that both LeVay and Hamer are themselves gay men.
Health, I care who Westen is because he is not a real journalist. He is biased. Show me something from a reputable news source. (And yes, I actually did read the article).
Also, your characterization of scientific research as “Anti-gay” or “Pro-gay” reveals your own bias. Research is not “anti” or “pro” anything. It is just research. I, too, am not “pro” gay, and even though I have explained to you that I don’t form my opinions based on “liberal gay propaganda” (you kindly told me that you “don’t care” where I get my information from) you continue to paint me as a liberal gay activist who swallows liberal media. Want to know what I am doing right now? Watching FOX News. I am sure I’ll get lots of “liberal gay propaganda” there.
I think the OU response was very watered down, they can take part in the democratic process without praising it: it is only the better of two evils. Torah values are the only ones that should be praised. “we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint….and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.” That is shameful in my opinion.
Also, how do you explain people becoming gay when in jail? It is perhaps because they have no other outlet. It is also perhaps because a lack of Torah and a surplus of averos will make someone have a taiva for homosexuality: along with all sorts of other issues. The leaders that gave Hitler power and strong-handed his enemies (the SA, prior to the SS) were gay (before he killed them that is. I am not convinced that a gay person cannot find other women attractive. Nothing can stand before the fire of Torah and if a human being with powerful, deep-rooted homosexual drives falls once along the way there is no excuse to actually perform the act itself or demand it be respected. Making a public national statement embracing homosexuality will do much harm (just like legalizing prostitution and gambling will even if people will do it anyway).
Jeishfeminist
There’s a very good article regarding JONAH in particular and reparetive therapy in general that touches on Dr. Spitzer as well, in Dialogue Vol 3 Fall 2012.
The dialogue Journal is reviewed by Rav Shlomo Miller, Rav Feldman, and Rav Moshe Meiselman and features articles on Homosexuality by Rav Ahron Feldman as well as Rabbi Hillel Godlberg.
The arilce about the clinical aspects is written by Dr. Elan Karten Ph.D.
I think you’ll find it pretty enlightening.
Over the last decade, studies of twins have provided some of the
strongest evidence that “Our genes do not make us do it”. If you take pairs of identical twins in which one twin is homosexual, the identical co-twin is usually not homosexual. That means, given that identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No-one is born gay. The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.
david24, people don’t “become gay in jail”. The things men do in jail have to do with power and authority, not sexual desire, and often they’re not consensual. 21% of male inmates report being sexually assaulted while incarcerated, and 7% report being raped.
moi aussi,
You are correct for the most part (I think there was one study that found identical twins to be just over 50%). But almost all the studies did show that if one identical twin brother was homosexual there were higher incidences of homosexuality in the other identical twin brother than with non-twin brothers. This would seem to indicate some genetic factor.
jewishfeminist02,
While there are plenty of situations that are as you describe. There is no serious scientific basis for claiming that there is no sexual desire involved on the part of the aggressor.
Furthermore, not all homosexual encounters in prison are non-consensual. There are also plenty of consensual encounters by people who were, and return to being, heterosexual on the outside. The same thing occurs with women.
benignuman, that would not necessarily indicate a genetic factor any more than indicate an environmental factor. Both twins were presumably exposed to (mostly) the same things.
“While there are plenty of situations that are as you describe. There is no serious scientific basis for claiming that there is no sexual desire involved on the part of the aggressor.”
Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D., writes the following in an article in Psychology Today:
Such crimes are more common than you might think, but few know much about the rapists who stalk these victims. There is a stereotype that such predators are homosexual. However, this is not the case. Rapists who prey on males can be sexually oriented to women, men, or both. It is most typical for such rapists to be heterosexual or bisexual and living with a partner. Often, they consider themselves to be quite masculine and go overboard in projecting that image. Tattoos, excessive drinking, and having many consensual sexual partners is common. In fact, such offenders believe that the rape makes them more masculine which builds a grandiose self perception.
“Furthermore, not all homosexual encounters in prison are non-consensual. There are also plenty of consensual encounters by people who were, and return to being, heterosexual on the outside. The same thing occurs with women.”
Correct. That is why I wrote that *often* they are not consensual.
The organization JONAH believes in reparative therapy and lists the support of R’ Aharon Feldman, Aish, R’ Shmuel Kamenetzky, the RCA, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, zt”l, among others.
The same group is being sued by those who have been psychologically damaged by their efforts.
This indicates top me that there is indeed more politicization of science, and less of our community embracing sound scientific evidence.
One of my strongest points of contention these days is the fact that “frum” people reject scientific and public health evidence on many things, whether it be brain stem death, abortion (the first Rishon Le Tzion of the State of Israel, the tzaddik haRav Benzion Meir Chai Uziel, zt”l, the same rabbi who opened Judaism to the children of intermarriage, affirmed the dignity of women in political, civic, and religious leadership, and affirmed the need for peaceful coexistence between Israel and her Arab cousins, also was a proponent of the dignity of women’s choice. He paskened that any abortion where there was even a ta’am kalush is one that halakha permits, for the broadest possible sake of saving a woman’s life, whether it be physical, emotional, psychological, social, or economic), vaccinations, or now, homosexuality, as well.
Jewishfeminist,
I did not mean to suggest that the dominant partners in prisons should be categorized as homosexual. On the contrary, they are heterosexuals who using other men as an outlet for their sexual desires because there are no women around. I agree that they are not “becoming” homosexual. I just meant to counter your point that these occurences don’t have anything to do with sexual desire.
HaKatan,
The percentages are higher for identical twins than fraternal twins.
rebdoniel,
The things you list are not equal. I do not think it is fair to say that frum people reject scientific and public health evidence
1) Vaccinations: I have never heard of any Rabbi or any Frum person of prominence who has claimed that people should not vaccinate their children.
2) Brain Stem death: This is a halachic machlokes about what constitutes death, not a scientific one.
3) Abortion: the status of a fetus in its mother’s womb is a Machlokes Rishonim (Rashi v. Rambam) and has been the subject of debate within halacha since that time. It has nothing to do with a rejection of science (if anything the science is on the anti-abortion side).
4) The evidence on homosexuality is mixed. Both sides pick and choose what evidence they use.
People do engage in homosexual acts in prison and heterosexuals even develop long term romances with other men. You can call it something else but that does not change reality- it is certainly a sexual experience.
When I say “become homosexual” I mean to say they start feeling desires they have not previously felt or considered. Nothing can stand before the fire of Torah and if a human being with powerful, deep-rooted homosexual drives falls once along the way there is no excuse to actually perform the act itself or demand it be respected. Making a public national statement embracing homosexuality will do much harm (just like legalizing prostitution and gambling will even if people will do it anyway).
On aish.com there’s someone who calls himself David and tells of his struggles with homosexuality. His first article is called “The Straight Path Home” and his second article “Straight Path: David Responds” is a response to the many comments he received. I recommend both articles, to get a glimpse of someone who has been there and made a complete turn around.
Here are just a few lines of what he writes:
Yes, there are many causes of homosexuality. My path is one that is common ? the triadic family and detachment from father, the missed opportunity to bond with other men. Other formative experiences common to those with same-sex attractions include physical or sexual abuse, and peer rejection. Others are responding to what they perceived as threatening relationships with mother or other women.
Health,
Narth is an organization that believes that you can change your attraction. JONAH also believes that
“Your posts are getting more & more laughable. Who cares that he’s not a real journalist or that he is biased? He wrote an article, nothing more. My point was what was in the article. You claim you read the article, but besides cursing out Westen, you have Not refuted any of the scientific points of the article.”
If a) he is not a real journalist and b) he is biased then it logically follows that c) a reasonable person cannot trust that the article contains accurate information. I never cursed out anyone.
“I never said research is one way or another. What I was saying was some research is Pro the Gay agenda and some of it is against the Gay Agenda!”
Please reread what you just wrote. I think you are proving my point.
“By continually basing your opinions on Only the research that is Pro the Gay agenda and Not even looking at All the research, then I’ll continue to paint you as a liberal gay activist who’s selective in what research to promote.”
By continually basing your opinions on Only the research that is Anti the Gay agenda and Not even looking at All the research, then I’ll continue to paint you as a conservative extremist who’s selective in what research to promote.
Hey, what’s with all the random initial caps, anyway?
Health, Moi Aussie: I still don’t think it matters whether it’s genetic or not. There are people who, from a very young age, notice their attraction to men and/or their attraction to women. Whether that’s a genetic or environmental concern is mostly irrelevant. There are people with an orientation that they cannot control, and we must give them the full sympathy and support that they deserve. And yes, maybe that sometimes means being nice to people who are real Ba’alei Aveirah. But I’d rather not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Health, you are correct. I apologize. I did not read the article you posted carefully and I assumed you were bringing some made up article about homosexuality being a learned/environmental behavior. Imagine my surprise to find that the article actually confirms what I have been saying all along– that homosexuality is biological & can be classified as an abnormality or disorder. This, of course, is incompatible with the so-called “liberal gay agenda” that you continue to assume I subscribe to. Scroll up and you will see one of my earlier posts saying exactly what the article says, that homosexuality is a biological disorder. I believe we are in agreement.
Health, you are correct. I apologize. I did not read the article you posted carefully and I assumed you were bringing some made up article about homosexuality being a learned/environmental behavior. Imagine my surprise to find that the article actually confirms what I have been saying all along– that homosexuality is biological & can be classified as an abnormality or disorder. This, of course, is incompatible with the so-called “liberal gay agenda” that you continue to assume I subscribe to. Scroll up and you will see one of my earlier posts saying exactly what the article says, that homosexuality is a biological disorder. I believe we are in agreement.
“There are people with an orientation that they cannot control, and we must give them the full sympathy and support that they deserve. That sometimes means being nice to people who are real Ba’alei Aveirah”
If you have feelings and try to deal with them privately that is one thing. But to engage in the act itself or be public about it is another thing altogether. I heard from Rov Schachter of YU that those homosexuals that are outspoken about their homosexual feelings and are proactive about it should be treated with no respect and one who does this should be considered as a rashsa gemurah while those who privately seek psychological help and perhaps tell select others their feelings in a modest way while admitting that the act is in no way permitted should be treated with compassion.
Sam2
Did you read the aish articles that I recommended?
“There are people with an orientation that they cannot control, and we must give them the full sympathy and support that they deserve. That sometimes means being nice to people who are real Ba’alei Aveirah”
If you have feelings and try to deal with them privately that is one thing. But to engage in the act itself or be public about it is another thing altogether. If you fall deeply in love with a married woman, no one would say it is ok to have an affair with her. If all the women you know are married, no one would say it would be ok to have an affair with any of them because otherwise you would be stuck alone without another outlet.
No one is saying that we should condone gay people having affairs. But what is wrong with them going public? It may help them to get chizuk from others, and they can’t get chizuk if no one knows about their struggles. I imagine there are many closeted gay frum people who feel alone and drowning. No one can help them if they don’t speak about about it. Furthermore, if one person goes public, others who are still closeted may get chizuk just from knowing there is someone else out there who is battling the same thing.
I also referred to closeted individuals who will not know that others share their struggles unless they go public. This is a serious consideration. Again, I am not talking about men who are “proactive” about their homosexuality (this is vague but I assume you mean those who have boyfriends and engage in prohibited acts). Obviously such a case is different.
Furthermore, just because someone is publicly violating a mitzvah does not mean they don’t deserve our compassion. I don’t mistreat or cut ties with openly gay men, just as I don’t mistreat or cut ties with Conservative and Reform yidden. To do so would be a tremendous chillul Hashem, and would only drive the person further away from yiddishkeit. “Coming out” is a cry for help, and if our response to it is to castigate the person or, worse, shun him, he will certainly not be motivated to do teshuvah.
jewishf-stop making up your own def. of chillul Hashem. it is a real chillul shem Hashem when things HKBH calls an abomination are being admitted publicly and youre feeling compassion. I’m not from the same crowd as R shachter and dont personally consider him my/our manhig, but he put it very logically. this is about halachah, not emotions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.