Talk:Homosexuality Causal theories

It's going to be real hard for me to be objective, because my mind's made up. I believe the theories of Richard Cohen --presented in part at www.gaytostraight.org -- as well as the traditional Judeao-Christian view of homosexuality as a sin.

You should not add material to a page if you admit that you are unable to do so, c'est vrai, n'est pa? Why would Richard Cohen's political and religious views even be considered as worth discussing on a page dedicated to describing how doctors and scientists are elucidating the genetic, biological and psychological causes of homosexuality? It seems that you are avoiding the subject altogether, and just using the word "homosexual" as a launching pad to damn homosexuals to hell. (That is correct, isn't it? That such a sin damns them to eternal torment in Hell?) RK

I intend to avoid mentioning Cohen's religious views. I am unaware of his political views. I intend to concentrate exclusively on his psychological views and on genetic research his website and book have brought to my attention. I think some mention of religious views of causation are appropriate, but they should take a lot less space to describe than the genetic research and psychological theories. My religion specifically disclaims eternal torment in Hell. In fact, that's one of the reasons I chose to join it. Ed Poor

---

I'm moving this quote here, until it's useful.

"Much of the debate stems from the question of how a person acquires homosexual desires. Popular articles on studies of identical twins raised separately tended to claim that a genetic component was proven. However, the Bailey-Pillard study was not based on a random sample, but a biased sample, as the twins who volunteered were solicited through advertisements in homosexual newspapers and magazines as opposed to general periodicals. Therefore, the subjects were more likely to resemble each other than nonhomosexual twins. Dr. Simon LeVay stated, ?In fact, the twin studies . . . suggest that it's not totally inborn [homosexuality], because even identical twins are not always of the same sexual orientation.? Dr. Bailey himself stated, ?There must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins.?

---

The following material has been deleted from the main page. We already have a page on religious views of homosexuality.

Theories abound as to what "causes" homosexuality. Opinion ranges from ideas attributed to fundamentalist Christians that homosexuality is chiefly or entirely a lifestyle choice to psychological, biological, or theological ideas positing homosexual desire as inherent and acceptable.

This article will examine several points of view. As of 2001-Dec-05 it is a work in progress, but with a little work it can quickly become more than a stub.

=== Traditional Religious Views ====

From its inceptions until the 20th century, Judaism has viewed homosexual sexual acts as an abomination. The Mosaic Law[?] forbade numerous sexual relationships and practices, with homosexuality being just one. Deviations from mandated sexual mores were seen as due to influences with non-Israelite tribes or man's rebellious nature.

Christianity, like Judaism and for similar reasons, viewed homosexuality as sinful and due like other sins to man's fallen nature or satanic temptation.

=== Modern Religious Views ==== Judaism, and to a greater extent Christianity, began to relax the age-old prohibition against homosexuality. Scholars began pointing out translation problems with ancient texts long held to prohibit homosexual acts. The new translations, regarded as corrections, showed that what had forbidden was related to temple practices and in most cases amounted to prohibitions against worship of other gods or of forms of ritual prostitution practiced by non-Israelite tribes. With some currents in Judaism no longer regarding homosexuality, no particular caused for it is evinced.

In the 20th Century,

=== Psychological and Genetic Research ====

=== Political Views ====

This may not be the best division. Some of the views may take issue with the label 'traditional' saying that there was a lot more historical support for homosexuality than this article suggests.

Note the difficulty in keeping on topic: this is only about causal theories, not issues of morality, ethics, human rights, etc.

---

I thought the religious views were relevant, but I concede that my bias may blind me to any given idea's actual relevance or irrelevance. I was leading up to the genetic and psychological causal theories. Would you all prefer that I wrote the whole thing offline, rather than typing it in bit by bit? --Ed Ed Poor

As a Jew, I believe that working on the seventh day of the week (the Sabbath) is literally a sin. But I only would mention this in the page on religious views of work; I would not not add this to an entry on the political or economic views of the weekend vesus weekdays. Even then, on a religion oriented page, I could only note that "Jews believe that this is a sin because of XYZ...", rather than stating this belief as a verifiable fact. I even consider my own religious beliefs to be mere opinions, rather than facts! (Which is why I am theologically liberal, as opposed to being a theological conservative) RK

One point that may be of some meta-interest is that even if you didn't consider your religious beliefs to be mere opinions, you could still agree that they wouldn't belong on a page of this type. (Unless, I suppose, that one of your religious beliefs was that they should be written on every page of Wikipedia!) I think my opinions on religious matters are not mere opinion, but fact, but I think that doesn't give me any particular reason to want to include them on pages of this sort. For example, this page should not say "Athiests tend to view homosexuality as a rather boring fact about some people."

---

Thank you for the advice, RK and Jimbo. I will take it to heart, especially when providing an overview of genetic studies and psychological research. Ed Poor