Do homosexual people have a chemical imbalance in their brain?

Answer 1

some scientist speculate that men with kleinfelters syndrome (that means that they have three sex chromosomes, xy is a normal man, xxy is more "effeminate male") could be genetically set to be gay, also a study in europe discovered that gay men are more attracted to male pheramones than they are to women pheramones, meaning it could be chemical.

this is all just speculation tho.

Answer 2

There is nothing wrong with the brain in homosexuals. They may have an inbalance of serotonin/norepinephrine because they are depressed about who they are, but there is no physiological difference in heterosexual and homosexual brains. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973 because it is not a disorder and it is not a mental illness.

Search for "81 Words"--that may be insightful

Answer 3

Definitely not. Well, maybe some of them do, just as some heterosexual and bisexual people do. I'm just saying, a chemical imbalance does not change sexual orientation in the least.

Answer 4

As far as I could remember in my psychology class, NO. Homosexual people are said to be abnormal (not mentally), because they don't have that exact percentage of the DNA from their mother and father's genes, or somehting. You can find that in Genreral Psychology Book. Any author.

Answer 5

No, they just are sexually attracted to others of their own gender.

Answer 6

It's not a myth...they are "not well." They have flushed their integrity and honor down the toilet.

Answer 7

no that's a myth

Answer 8

Introductory Summary: The answer is yes, most likely. Why and how? It has been proven, for example, that alcoholics have the same, even those that effect nobody but themselves.

Intolerance & Bigoted Hypocrisy - Part One - Nov. 10, 2006 at 08:40 PM
Fundamentalist Response to Homosexualism: Intolerance & Bigoted Hypocrisy - Part One

***Homophobophobia***

I strongly discourage any sort of homophobic remarks. Any person with any sexual orientation deserves the same level of respect. It is very important that we attack the issues rather than the persons dealing with the issues. The best way to deal with any problem is with compassion, reasoning, logic, and focus - keeping in mind that people are not problems.

In modern society, there is a great need to eradicate heterophobia and homophobophobia, and put an end to the societal progression toward omni sexuality. Perhaps people are born homophobic also. We are unfairly treating two types of heterosexuals as homophobes. Four categories are characteristic of heterosexuals. It can be seen that one group is truly homophobic, while two are prejudicially labeled homophobic.

1. First are those who find it grossly offensive because of their sexual orientation.

2. The second assembly includes individuals who cannot condone the gay way of life because of their morals or spiritual connection.

3. Another assembly includes those who are pro-gay or do not care.

4. Finally, some people fear or hate the gay community.

The first classification may have been born with the tendency to be repulsed by the idea of same-gender intercourse. On the other hand, perhaps they are simply behaving the way a straight person naturally would. If we can be born inclined to be turned on by a particular thing, then it can be very possible that we are also born to be turned off by particular things as well.

If this includes gay activity, then to find homosexuality obscene does not necessarily mean that one is homophobic. A few people consider it abnormal for a straight person to find that it is gross that a man can find another man attractive. Is it therefore also wrong for an individual to think that for somebody to find a horse sexually fascinating is weird?

Secondly aforementioned are those persons with religious or ethical ideas that support their debate. In no way are these men and women cruel to the gay community.

In fact, it is very likely that the genuine majority of the homophobic population has no church-based affiliation.


**Position of the Religious Right**

Here is a quick summary of the clearly innocent logic that is behind the position of the religious right. First, the Bible seems to refer to God using the term "him", and the Christian Empire as "the bride of Christ", a situation of allegory that represents the original definition of marriage.

Here are some examples of portions of the Bible that show disfavor toward behavior practiced by persons with Homosexualism:

Genesis 1:27
Revelation 21:2
I Corinthians 6:9.

Note that reading these lines in their context is vital to fully understanding them.


***Summary Thus Far***

We must deal with homophobia in the same manner as we would deal with any other form of bullying. Instead, we send religious organizations death threats, and vandalize the buildings where a community of people would reach out to gays and lesbians. Bullying a homosexual is wrong. We need to leave it up to the gay community to decide whether they want to be attracted to the same sex. Nevertheless, we should also leave it up to the straight community to decide whether they want to be grossed out. We must take care to not treat the spiritually committed with worse intolerance than that of the true homophobic maniacs, who actually carry out hate crimes that are actually hurtful. Is it not time that we left some room for straight pride, without being afraid that we are jeopardizing a minority group?


***Marriage***

It has been said, "Should two people not marry if they love each other?" As troubling as it sounds, many pedophiles have alleged that they love children. If Michael Jackson is truly guilty, then he is a perfect example. They can also lure children until the feelings of love seem mutual. The existence of a certain form of love associated with an activity does not guarantee its ethical nature.

***
Question: If God is so great and wonderful, why would he create homosexuality in the first place? When you answer that question, then you may earn the right to judge. Otherwise, you better leave that job up to God. Answer: First we must answer the question of whether or not God did in fact create homosexuality. Since when did God create issues and personal passions? He created the capacities and abilities for these things: "the Heavens and the Earth" - the human body. In short, God created people and things; He didn't create homosexuality any more than He created homosexual marriages, abortions, lust, incest, or the love a man may have for golfing, racing, dancing, track & field, or Anna Kornikova.

Did God also create every other sexual deviation from straight relationships, including polygamy, swinging, bestiality, prostitution, pedophilia, incest, pornography, infidelity, and rape? Many people would consider one or more of these as normal. Does that mean God created them to think that way?

Did God also create homophobes, perhaps? If the answer is yes, then we can easily conclude that God also creates alcoholics (hey, they aren't hurting anyone else either, so let them make their own decision right?), and flashers, etc.

Why did God create thistles, anthrax, poison ivy, and hurricanes? Poison ivy is not a normal plant, and hurricanes don't show normal weather. Clearly the argument that God made homosexuals that way and it's therefore OK doesn't seem to hold very much logic.

God created the human body; he created the chemicals in the human brain; he created us with choices to make, and health concerns to take abnormal, unhealthy, inhuman, or unnatural turns. He did not, however, create mankind with those choices and health issues automatically in place, as long as there's something we can do about them: a response.

Homosexuals, just like pedophiles and porn addicts, should be respected as human beings, abide by the same law, and be given the same rights. That doesn't mean that, just because they're part of God's creation, they're perfectly healthy.


***homosexual marriage***

On the issue of "Evil David Says: June 7th, 2006 at 12:37 pm But ... the sanctity of marriage...! Avis and Lauren, as married folk, don't you realize that all those same-sex marriages are making a mockery of your respective marriages? They're ruining it for everybody! Another argument I've heard advanced on the Fox Channel is: if you redefine marriage to include people of the same sex, you would also have to redefine it to include a union between: (1) committed multiple partners (polygamists); and (2) a person and animal (bestiality); and (3) a person and an inanimate object (is there a word for this?). ***Logically, Numbers 2 and 3 can be ruled out because an animal and object can't consent to marriage. The polygamy argument is more difficult to deal with, however..."

Actually, not true... no very not true. People have been having happily (and not so happily) *arranged* marriages for thousands of years. One person, usually the woman, is so far from giving consent it's not even funny.

So if an 11-year-old girl from Sacristan, Azalea was to be given in an arranged marriage to say... her father's clover field (hey, if it's legal, why not?), what else might be on the horizon? Yes, the Fox Channel is 100% correct.

Arranged marriages happen all the time, and they don't involve consent. Neither would the legalization of marriages to plants, animals, cars, and who the heck knows what else, or of bisexual threesomes, polygamists, swingers, buggers (people who practice bestiality), prostitutes to pimps, non-violent pedophiles to consenting children, "funny-uncles" in consenting incestuous relationships with their nieces, and, while we're at it, rape, as long as she grows to like it after a while... since obviously, our society doesn't see anything, consent, morals or otherwise, as much of a baring on what is accepted. It all has to do with how much propaganda and legislative power any given minority group may poses.

This has also raised the question among many [[special interest groups]] of the questionable and controversial exclusion of all other [[sexual orientations]] from the definition of marital and other government and charter-protected status. They include: [[bisexuality]], [[polygamy]], [[swinging]], [[bestiality]], [[prostitution]], [[pedophilia]], [[incest]], and every other paraphilia one may find in Wikipedia.

The question remains: once marital and other law is open to any and all [[minority groups]], what [[legislation]] can be put in place to prevent further deviation from [[traditional law]], which would not be in violation of our [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]? Is there a major underlying flaw in the Charter?


Intolerance & Bigoted Hypocrisy - Part Two - Nov. 10, 2006 at 09:30 PM
Fundamentalist Response to Homosexualism: Intolerance & Bigoted Hypocrisy - Part Two


***Am I lesbian? ***

You're a little confused about having experiences that turned you on unexpectedly. I won't try to tell you who to be or what to do; I can only offer my expert observation and advice from my experiences and all the hours of study and research I've done on this and other topics.

As a heterosexual, you enjoy the rewards of having a boyfriend, and you appreciate the wonderful role you have being a woman. You simply can't see yourself getting involved in something as strange to you as homosexual activity.

You're not fully satisfied by how fulfilled you are in relationships with men, partly because the men you've been with are not manly and compassionate enough to meet your needs.

Women are often attracted to aspects of men that women sometimes demonstrate better: you obviously like your man to demonstrate compassion, closeness, tenderness, and understanding, but society pressures modern men to avoid those things, and expects men to show a side of them that quite frankly can be often disgusting.

Are you in love? What you feel is started by something that's special, but isn't quite love: friendship. It's great that you respect someone. This gives you a great opportunity to explore relationships with guys and friendships with girls, and look forward to dating a man and marrying him. A feeling of closeness is never a bad thing.



***Causes of Homosexualism***

Just as alcoholism comes from three different causes (according to Alcoholics Anonymous), one of which is being born with deficient levels of dopamine, all of which are related to chemical imbalances of the chemical dopamine, scientific exploration of the biological anomaly known as Homosexualism clearly points to its very probable cause being a treatable case of excess or lacking genetic substance, element, or compound.

Homosexuals are in fact born with a treatable deficiency or imbalance of one or more hormones, neurotransmitters, or other medical chemicals (one of them possibly being testosterone).

Conclusive evidence has yet to prove otherwise, as repeated attempts to duplicate a study which claimed otherwise, has failed to reproduce results in favor of a "gay gene" and other eccentric hypotheses.

Some have theorized that nearly all human beings, at some point in their lives, will find themselves, usually to their dismay, erotically attracted to the same gender. Those who dismiss that feeling remain straight. Some welcome and embrace the feeling. They chose to continue accepting it as an exiting thing.

These will inevitably become homosexual if they chose to continue entertaining the idea. Often this sense of attraction is due to a friend or acquaintance that is already gay. He or she will introduce, and at times entice the individual, to accept this new realm of feelings.

In other cases it can start with a mere appreciation for charm or beauty, developing into something that is more potent.

In either case, the subject was evidently not in fact born with homosexual tendencies. A change results, one that many have falsely thought of as unavoidable.

This explanation for why people become gay makes allot of sense, and may very well have some truth to it. As with every other hypothesis in this field of science, it requires more research. The claim that people can be born gay appeared, after all, to be carried out with at least sine bias: No other research team has been able to duplicate their results before or since!
Are people who have sex with animals born to find animals attractive?

Let's say Billy McKinley McKean doesn't own an Xbox 360, so he goes o his friend's house to play halo. He becomes really good at shooting games and eventually buys a Beebe gun and starts shooting pop cans in his back yard after school he loves shooting things so much, he joins cadets. Does this mean he was born a cadet, or perhaps born to be a cadet, biologically speaking? Billy actually joins cadets and eventually the Canadian army, because he was interested and like the feeling of shooting things, especially the part where things or animals or people get blown up.

Just because someone does something or live his life a certain way doesn't necessarily mean they were born that way.

Let's say our friend you know the guy who joined cadets, was born into a family that usually had very sharp eye eight. This means that he was born to have good eyesight not a gun-slinging marksman. His good 20-20 vision helped him aim his gun at the target victim, so we can say that being born with good eyesight increase his *chance* of eventually making the *decision* to get involved with the military. At the same time those events in his childhood gave him an interest in guns and other weapons.

Billy wasn't born blind; he wasn't born with a political preference or an orientation toward guns. He was born with a few biological factors that made his body work differently than most people, which made him more likely to join the army.


**Fundamentalists & Their "Cures"**

If people can use a 12-step program to treat themselves - albeit with some difficulty, resistance, and challenges - of a disease called alcoholism which they may or may not have been born with, then one can easily deduce that the same concept applies to Homosexualism, and hence the idea that there are ways to ���cure��� it.

What you need to do - though it may be hard at first - is change your expectations in men: don't settle for someone who buys into the garbage society throws at them, such as treating females like nothing more than a prize, or throwing out the concept of tenderness and caring for you no matter what.

This will shift the focus in your relationships, and you will begin to see the aspects of women that you find attractive show up in the way you look at the men in your lives, because you'll be married to a more caring type of man - someone you truly deserve - in the first place. I truly wish you the very best as you try to make sense of all that's going on inside your mind. There's hope and a better love life to be seen on your horizon! Please get back to me and let me know how things are going for you. If you have any other questions or comments, I'd be happy to see what I can do to be of some help to you.

In conclusion (and I really hope you read everything 'cause it's the best answer you'll ever get and it's very important), you're feeling an attraction to the characteristics that men should have. Most guys feel attracted to other guys once and a while, but they stay straight. Why? Because they are straight, even if they're very attracted, and they know that being straight and sometimes liking certain types of people are both natural things.

So are you weird? No. Don't feel weird. All you have to do is look for the things that you see in the same sex when you start to spend more time with the opposite sex your age, and everything will be just fine.

If Billy were to have a change of heart and say he hates wart and wants nothing to do with it and he wanted to plant flowers, be a goat shepherd, or carve tombstones for a living instead, he could probably put down his gun and truly turn his life around. He can still be successful by using his sharp eyesight and his other unique biological characteristics in a different, more constructive lifestyle.

It's a known fact that there are negative aspects of being left-handed in a society that writes from left to right. people may or may not be born left or right handed, but if somebody ever comes to realize that it's better for them to be right handed, when they're left-handed with , with enough help and effort, they have the power to change.


Intolerance: Appendix - Nov. 10, 2006 at 09:31 PM
Appendix


From Oxford University Press, WordPerfect 10.0.0.663 (Year: 2002):

Marriage >noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife 2 a combination of two or more elements
-PHRASES marriage of convenience a marriage concluded primarily to achieve a practical purpose.
-ORIGIN Old French mariage, from marier 'marry'.


The proceeding references the portion of the Bible that is used the most by Christians as an answer to the gay rights ascent in society.

First, some notes on the first passage:

Effeminate (KJV)

The NIV uses the phrase homosexual offenders (fornicators changed to "sexually immoral", adulterers changed to "male prostitutes".)

The New American Standard Bible (from the Lockman Foundation) uses the word effeminate, but added, ���i.e., effeminate by perversion" in a footnote.

The New King James Version uses "effeminate homosexuals".


"Abusers of themselves with mankind" (seems to refer to anal copulation) (KJV)

The NIV has in fact eliminated the phrase "abusers of them with mankind". No word on why, or if it was omitted on purpose. Was it eliminated in an early manuscript?

The NASB uses "homosexuals" in its place. It would appear that homosexuality appears twice in the same verse.

The New King James Version uses "sodomites" in its place.

[See also: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sav1.htm]


This portion of Christian scripture is often used out of context. Here is its full context:

I Corinthians' 6:9 through 20 and 7:1 through three (KJV)

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [See http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-2/msg00180.html]

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 and such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

14 And God hath both risen up the Lord, and will also rise up us by his own power.

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid.

16 What? Know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? For two, says he, shall be one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

18 Flee from fornication. Every sin that a man does is without the body. But he that commits fornication sins against his own body.

19 What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20 for you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your own body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

7 now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3 let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.


Direct translations:
From "effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" in I Corinthians 6:9, we find the words Arsenekoites - a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite. p. 109
Malakos - effeminate men or boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually.

It is possible that a) rsenokoi in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with Malakos/j b, the passive male partner (88.281).

Ajrsenokoivth��