I don't need to - the onus is on you to provide tangiable evidence that he does...

Personally, I think it was mankinds early attempt to control society, to make it accountable to an all seeing, all hearing entity, at ALL times. Life was savage back then, as a species we lacked the knowledge, science and cognitive capability to understand our surroundings....it would have been an incredibly scary experience living during that period. Life would have been frought with danger, murder, rape, pilage, starvation, disease, discomfort and pain. The only thing to eleviate such a living hell would have been the promise of something better in the 'next life' - provided you obeyed certain rules...how convenient...

Your talking of Christianity - but what about the hundreds of documented 'Gods' before this....or indeed since. Tell me, had you lived in Norway 800 years ago...what God would you have been worshipping? Or ancient Greece? Or if you were born 20 years ago in Iran. What God???? Were they all wrong? You know what happens to people who believe in false prophets/idols...

Can you not see what has happened? You have been endoctrinated into 'the one true faith' as defined by your parents, immediate family, you social group and peers. Ironically, this is exactly how 1.5 billion Muslims, 900 million Hindus, 376 million Budists, 23 million Sikhs, 19 million Juche, 15 million Baha'i, 4.2 million Jainists, 4 million Shinto's, 500 thousand scientologists feel.

The above ideologies in their fundemental state, are irreconcilable. Why isn't their ONE fundemental God that everyone worships? That would atleast point to evidence of an alien visitation during mankinds infancy...

I can think of nothing worse, than a celestial dictator watching over my every move, knowing my every action, my every thought....even thoughts that I had not even became conciously aware of. Its the ultimate guilt trip.....and thats for starters....as Christopher Hitchens puts it....the real fun begins when your dead.

I also find it ironic that God/Jesus is always depicted as a man.Yes a man...heck...its gotta be a man right? None of you think this smells of male ego....an extension of the male genitalia? No?

Consertive-Hippie....I make all my comments with due respect. You're almost certainly a nice guy...and Im sure you'd still be nice even if you didnt believe in God.

J

Some of you might find my essay interesting....

Do biological theories of sexual orientation intensify or mitigate prejudice against lesbians and gay men?

Over the past two decades many researchers have begun to focus their attention on the biological influences of sexual orientation (Veniegas & Conley, 2000). There is now a plethora of exciting research covering diverse areas such as genes (Bailey, 2003; Bailey & Benishay, 1993; Bailey et al., 1993, 2000; Bailey and Pillard, 1995; Bocklandt & Hamer, 2003; Eckert et al., 1986; Macke et al., 1993; Pillard & Weinrich, 1986), hormones (Arnold, 2003; Berenbaum et al., 2000; Cooke et al., 1999; Meyer-Bahlburg, 1984; Titus-Ernstoff et al., 2003), anatomy (Bogaert & Hershberger, 1999; Brown et al., 2002a, 2002b; Lippa, 2003a; Williams et al., 2000) and brain studies (Barch et al., 2003; Byne et al., 2001; LeVay, 1991; McFadden, 2002; Rahman et al., 2003b; Swaab & Hofman, 1990).

According to Bem, (1993) biological theories are considered to be deterministic in that they advocate immutability. In other words, sexual orientation is seen to be beyond the control of the individual. Whilst this maybe true for men, there is little conclusive evidence to suggest this might be the case for women (Baumeister, 2000; Gelder, 1991; Harrison, 1994; Morris & Rothblum, 1999; Whisman, 1996 cited in Veniegas & Conley, 2000). Despite this, public opinion polls show greater levels of endorsement for biological explanations than ever before (Newport, 1998 cited in Veniegas & Conley, 2000). However, there still remains an overwhelming majority who are sceptical (see Haldeman, 1994; Veniegas & Conley, 2000). Could this be held to explain why prejudice against lesbians and gay men still prevails? (see Bem, 1997; Horvath & Ryan, 2003; Whitley & Aegisdottir, 2000).

In reality, the extent to which biological theories can be held accountable for the varying levels of prejudice against homosexuals is unclear (Bem, 1997). According to Bem, (1997) the attitudes people form influence beliefs about causality. Attitudes are influenced by factors such as gender belief systems (Deaux & Kite, 1987 cited in Whitley & Aegisdottir, 2000), authoritarianism (Adorno et al., 1950 cited in Whitley & Aegisdottir, 2000), social dominance orientation (Pratto et al., 1994), stereotype conformity (Fiske, Lin & Neuberg, 1999), media (Herek, 1990), religiosity (Herek, 1987) and previous exposure to lesbians and gay men (Herek, 1997; Herek & Glunt, 1993 cited in Herek, 1997). With this in mind, it comes as no surprise that attitudes affect the assimilation of biological evidence (Bem, 1997; Hegarty & Pratto, 2001). Thus, the purpose of this essay will be to draw the connection between attitudes and subsequent beliefs about causality in an effort to explain the variance in prejudice against homosexuals.

Homosexuals are often the target of prejudice because they derive their identity from social categorisations that are socially functional and vivid (Hogg and Vaughn, 2002). Prejudice operates cross culturally and manifests itself in even the most isolated of communities (Herek & Capitanio, 1995; Hogg and Vaughn, 2002; Moghaddam, 1998; Whitley and Aegisdottir, 2000). For the most part, prejudice takes the form of verbal abuse, but in extreme cases can lead to murder (Hogg & Vaughn, 2002). Prejudice can be defined in terms of ‘the holding of derogatory social attitudes or cognitive beliefs, the expression of negative effect or the display of hostile or discriminatory behaviour towards members of a group on account of their membership of that group’ (Brown, 1995: p.8). Let us now consider how negative attitudes might affect beliefs about causality.

According to Deaux & Kite, (1987 cited in Whitley & Aegisdottir, 2000) we live in a society that has very clearly defined gender roles. Heterosexist in its outlook, this belief system provides a set of rules that distinguishes between men and women (Bem, 1993; Fiske, Lin & Neuberg, 1999). Men are viewed as possessing masculine features and women are viewed as possessing feminine features (Deaux & Kite, 1987 cited in Whitley & Aegisdottir, 2000). Consistent with this form of stereotyping, there is the expectation that individuals should conform to gender appropriate behaviour (Bem, 1993). Unsurprisingly, homosexuals represent a challenge to this ideology (Kite & Whitley, 1998). Heterosexuals often describe gay men as possessing feminine characteristics and lesbians as possessing masculine characteristics (Deaux & Lewis, 1984; McCreary, 1994 cited in Whitley & Aegisdottir, 2000). In other words, gay men are seen to posses the gender associated characteristics of heterosexual women and lesbians are seen to posses the gender associated characteristics of heterosexual men (Taylor, 1983).

Consistent with Allport’s, (1954 cited in Hogg & Vaughn, 2002) definition of the prejudiced personality, the existence of gender role ambiguity could be held to explain the negative attitudes towards lesbians and gay men (see also Jackson & Cash, 1985; Laner & Laner, 1985 cited in Whitley & Aegisdottir, 2000). Anti-gay attitudes are often associated with mutable causal beliefs, not immutable ones (Hegarty & Pratto, 2001). Therefore, the mere presence of biological explanations as an alternative to life style choice could in fact intensify prejudice (Bem, 1997). This should come as no surprise when one considers just how salient gender role beliefs are for most people (Bem, 1993). Unfortunately, there is disturbing evidence to suggest that some may even be seeking corrective interventions such as selective abortions and genetic manipulation (Bem, 1997; Burr, 1996). As a logical progression to the discussion, let us now consider attitude formation within authoritarian societies.

Amidst the backdrop of polarized American attitudes, Adorno et al., (1950 cited in Whitley & Aegisdottir, 2000) proposed the concept of an authoritarian society. People high in authoritarianism tend to view individuals as belonging to either an in-group or an out-group. This in effect creates out-group stigmatization (Crocker et al., 1998 cited in Hogg & Vaughn, 2002). Thus, homosexuals are stigmatised because they possess or are believed to posses socially identifiable qualities that are devalued in some way. Conversely, could negative attitudes towards lesbians and gay men reflect the paranoia that sexual orientation is concealable? Perhaps, but it’s more reasonable to assume that anti-gay attitudes derive from the issue of controllability and media depiction (see Herek, 1990; Hogg & Vaughn, 2002).

Taking America as a good example of an authoritarian society, negative attitudes could be nurtured through the sanctioned oppression of stigmatized groups by authority. Indeed, Americans recently voted a ban on same sex marriage in 11 states (Roberts & Gibbons, 2004). Could this be held to reflect the Governments intolerance to homosexuality? After all, successive Presidents often proclaim to be devout Christians, purporting endless ideals of how the ‘good American’ should live. Perhaps Altemeyer, (1996) can provide an explanation. He suggests that the derogation of stigmatized out-groups helps to defend social ideals. In addition, the support for traditional values implies support for the traditional power structures in society. So in effect, authoritarian individuals are both influenced by the actions of government and through the action of themselves. This would go someway to explain the prevalence of strong gender belief systems within authoritarian societies.

As mentioned earlier, lesbians and gay men represent a challenge to traditional sex roles. They represent out-groups relative to the heterosexual norm (Bem, 1993, 1997). Gay communities are advocates of political change and often cite biological theories to support their position (Whitely & Aegisdottir, 2000). Herein lays the problem. Most religious and political leaders in authoritarian societies debunk the argument that biological theories provide an adequate explanation of sexual orientation. The failure by science to provide conclusive evidence has been used by some to advocate that homosexuals have ‘chosen to be that way’ (see Whisman, 1996 cited in Veniegas & Conley 2000). Sadly, this plays into the hands of authoritarian individual’s who in turn then see homosexuals as legitimate targets of prejudice and hostility (Whitely & Aegisdottir, 2000). It could be argued that the negative portrayal of homosexuals in the media has only served to exacerbate the problem (Herek, 1990). Lastly, let us now consider how social dominance orientation influences people’s negative attitudes and beliefs about causality.

Pratto et al., (1994) suggest that members of in-groups have an inherent desire to dominate and be superior to out-groups. In a similar vein to that of the authoritarian perspective, the social dominance position purports that attitudes and gender role beliefs stem from the same source. People high in social dominance orientation try to denigrate members of out-groups and oppose equality enhancing social programs such as equal rights. In effect, this reinforces in-group member’s perception of the status quo (Sidanius, 1993 cited in Whitely & Aegisdottir, 2000). Since homosexuals often have low social status within most Western societies, individuals high in social dominance orientation tend to hold particularly polarized attitudes towards lesbians and gay men (Whitley & Lee, 2000). Furthermore, in-groups legitimize myths that justify their prejudicial attitudes (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993). For example, those that hold the belief that homosexuality is a sin advocate prejudice against lesbians and gay men (Haldeman, 1994; Herek, 1987; Herek & Capitanio, 1995).

Similarly, for the same reasons as for authoritarian societies, people high in social dominance tend not to subscribe to biological theories. There could be a number of reasons for this. Firstly, to believe that sexual orientation is immutable would severely weaken an in-groups ability to legitimize prejudice and uphold the status quo. The very fabric of their ideology would be called into question and for many this would an intolerable situation. Secondly, through fear of being ostracized by one’s own in-group some individuals may choose to ignore biological explanations altogether. For the few that do subscribe to biological explanations, there would be a tendency to reinterpret the findings so that homosexuality could be viewed as some kind of congenital disease thus protecting legitimizing myths (Burr, 1996; Schuklenk, Stein, Kerin & Byne, 1997 cited in Veniegas & Conley 2000). Let us now consider how positive attitudes effect beliefs about causality.

According to Herek, (1997) heterosexuals who have regular and multiple contacts with lesbians and gay men tend to adopt more positive attitudes. In contrast to the authoritarian perspective, gay people are viewed as individuated out-group members. This in effect reduces prejudice because homosexuals are perceived to be unique individuals as opposed to belonging to a monolithic entity (Herek, 1997). Furthermore, heterosexual’s often report more positive feelings when lesbians and gay men have personally disclosed their sexual orientation to them. It could be held that such discussions might lead a heterosexual to conclude that sexual orientation is irrelevant to one’s qualities as a human being (Herek, 1997). This is perhaps the most profound reason as to why prejudice is so low amongst people who have contact with homosexuals (see Bem, 1993, 1997).

Needless to say, people who adopt positive attitudes often subscribe to biological explanations (Bem, 1997). They typically reject the deficiency model of homosexuality and view sexual minorities as falling within the broad spectrum of natural human variation. However, advocates of immutability often find themselves the target of bigoted prejudice because they are seen to be an additional threat to social ideals (Stein, 1994 cited in Veniegas & Conley, 2000). Of course, in light of Herek, (1997) positive attitudes don’t necessarily have to be accompanied by immutable causal beliefs. In the same vein, there are some who believe that biological explanations perpetrate the dichotomization of sexual orientation in terms of homosexual vs. heterosexual (Bem, 1993). Ultimately this leads to a disempowering message which further intensifies prejudice and misunderstanding (Gelder, 1991 cited in Horvath & Ryan, 2003).

In conclusion then, this essay has highlighted some of the mechanisms underlying attitude formation. Generally speaking, biological research appears to have little influence on modifying people’s attitudes towards homosexuality (Bem, 1997). Indeed the reverse seems to be true; people’s existing attitudes appear to influence beliefs about causality (Hegarty & Pratto, 2001). Given the fact that attitudes are notoriously difficult to modify, one could conclude that biological explanations have served to intensify prejudice not reduce it. It is hoped that the reader now has an appreciation of the factors involved and an explanation as to why biological theories might further polarize attitudes. As a final thought, it is important to consider the past role of biological research into human variation. One can look to Nazi Germany as a prime example of when causal explanations are taken to the extreme and used to incite intolerance and draconian public polices (Bem, 1997).

REFERENCES

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian spectre. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Arnold, A. P. (2003). The gender of the voice within: The neural origin of sex differences in the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 13, 759-764.

Bailey, J. M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science of gender-bending and transsexualism. Washington: Joseph Henry Press.

Bailey, J. M., & Benishay, D. S. (1993). Familial aggregation of female sexual orientation. American Journal of Psychiatry. 150, 272-277.

Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78, 524-536.

Bailey, J. M., & Pillard, R. C. (1995). Genetics of human sexual orientation. Annual review of sex research. 78, 126-150.

Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Neal, M. C., & Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women: Archives of General Psychiatry. 50, 350-354.

Barch, B. E., Reber, P. J., Levitt, M. R., Gitelman, D. R., Parrish, T. B., Mesulam, M. M., & Bailey, J. M. (2003). Neural correlates of sexual arousal in heterosexual and homosexual men. Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting.

Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: transforming the debate on sexual inequality. USA: Yale University Press.

Bem, J. D. (1997). Exotic Becomes Erotic: Explaining the Enigma of Sexual Orientation. Invited address presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.

Berenbaum, S. A., Duck, S. C., & Bryk, K. (2000). Behavioural effects of prenatal versus postnatal androgen excess in children with 21-hydroxylase-deficient congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Journal of Clinical Endocrinological Metabolism. 85, 727-733.

Bocklandt, A. F., & Hamer, D. H. (2003). Beyond hormones: a novel hypothesis for the biological basis of male sexual orientation. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation. 26, 8-12.

Bogaert, A. F., & Hershberger, S. (1999). The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Archive of Sexual Behaviour. 28, 213.

Brown, R. J. (1995). Prejudice: its social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Brown, W. M., Finn, C. J., Cooke, B., M., & Breedlove, S. M. (2002a). Differences in finger length ratios between self identified “Butch” and “Femme” lesbians. Archive of Sexual Behaviour. 32, 123-127.

Brown, W. M., Hines, M., Fane, B. A., & Breedlove, S. M. (2002b). Masculanized finger length patterns in human males and females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Hormones and Behaviour. 42, 123.

Byne, W., Tobet, S., Mattiace, L. A., Lasco, M. S., Kemether, E., Edger, M. A., Morgello, S., Buchsbaum, M. S., & Jones, L. B. (2001). The interstitial nuclei of the human anterior hypothalamus: an investigation of variation with sex, sexual orientation and HIV status. Hormones and Behaviour. 40, 86-92.

Cooke, B. M., Tabibinia, G., & Breedlove, S. M. (1999). A brain sexual dimorphism controlled by adult circulating androgens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96, 7538-7540.

Eckert, E. D., Bouchard, T. J., Bohlen, J., & Heston, L. L. (1986). Homosexuality in monozygotic twins reared apart. British Journal of Psychiatry. 148, 421-425.

Fiske, S. T., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (1999). The continuum model: Ten years later. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dualprocess theories in social psychology (pp. 231-254). New York: Guilford, Press.

Haldeman, D. C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 62, 221-227.

Hegarty, P. H., & Pratto, F. (2001). Sexual Orientation Beliefs: Their Relationship to Anti-Gay Attitudes and Biological Determinist Arguments. Journal of Homosexuality. 41 (1), 121-135.

Herek, G. M. (1987). Religious Orientation and Prejudice: A Comparison of Racial and Sexual Attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 13 (1), 34-44.

Herek, G. M. (1990). Illness, stigma and AIDS. In P. Costa & G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), Psychological aspects of serious illness (pp. 103-150). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1995). Black heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in the United States. The Journal of Sex Research. 32, 95-105.

Herek, G.M. (1997). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Does coming out make a difference? In M. Duberman (Ed.), A queer world: The Centre for Lesbian and Gay Studies reader (pp. 331-344). New York: New York University Press.

Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2002). Social Psychology, Third Edition. Harlow, England: Pearson; Prentice Hall.

Horvath, M. & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Antecedents and potential moderators of the relationship between attitudes and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. 48, 115-130.

Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1998). Do heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes toward homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men and bisexuals (pp. 39-61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

LeVay, S. (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science. 253, 1034-1037.

Lippa, R. A. (2003a). Are 2D:4D finger length ratios related to sexual orientation? Yes for men, no for women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85, 179-188.

Macke, J. P., Hu, N., Hu, S., Bailey, M., King, V. L., Brown, T.,
Hamer, D., & Nathans, J. (1993). Sequence variation in the androgen receptor gene is not a common determinant of male sexual orientation. American Journal of Human Genetics. 53, 844-852.

McFadden, D., & Shubel, E. (2002). Relative lengths of fingers and toes in human males and females. Hormones and Behaviour. 42, 492-500.

Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L. (1984). Psychoendocrine Research on Sexual Orientation: Current Status and Future Options. Progress in Brain Research. 61, 375.

Moghaddam, F. M. (1998). Social Psychology – Exploring Universals Across Cultures. 1st Ed. USA: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Pillard, R. C., & Weinrich, J. D. (1986). Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality: Archives of General Psychiatry. 43, 808-812.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social Dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67, 741-763.

Rahman, Q., Kumari, V., & Wilson, G. D. (2003b). Sexual –orientation-related differences in prepulse inhibition of the human startle response. Behavioural Neuroscience. 17, 25-31.

Roberts, T., & Gibbons, S. (2004). Same-sex marriage bans winning on state ballots. [Online] Available: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/ballot.samesex.marriage/ [6th December 2004].

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183-219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Swaab, D. F., & Hofman, M. A. (1990). An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men. Brain Research. 537, 141-148.

Taylor, A. (1983). Conceptions of masculinity and femininity as a basis for stereotypes of male and female homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality. 9, 37-53.

Titus-Ernstoff, L., Perez, K., Hatch, E. E., Troisi, R., Palmer, J. R., Hartage, P., Hyer, M., Kaufman, R., Adam, E., Strohsnitter, W., Noller, K., Pickett, K. E., & Hoover, R., (2003). Psychosexual characteristics of men and women exposed to diethylstilbestonal. Journal of Epidemiology. 14, 155.

Veniegas, C. R., & Conley, D. T. (2000). Biological Research on Women’s Sexual Orientations: Evaluating the Scientific Evidence. Journal of Social Issues. 55 (2), 256-260.

Whitley, E. B., & Aegisdottir, S. (2000). The Gender Belief system, Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation and Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. 42, 947-967.

Whitley, B. E., & Lee, S. E. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related constructs to attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 30, 144-170.

Williams, T. J., Pepitone, M. E., Christensen, S. E., Cooke, B. M., Huberman, A. D., Breedlove, N. J., Breedlove, T. J., Jordan, C. L., & Breedlove, S. M. (2000). Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature. 404, 455-456.

Cheers

J

This sort of thing happens alot when you live in a big city.

Your a cute looking girl - and your profile reads ok - I should imagine in real life you'd be a genuinely nice, warm sort of person.

The more you mingle, the more you chat, the more likely you are to find somebody - remember you only need to find one decent guy and your sorted for the rest of your life.

So take heart in that...

J

I'm a new member....just dropping in to say hi :)

Please feel free to view my profile, mesg me and engage me in anything you want.

I like discussing hot topics (politics, sex, religion etc) and enjoy hearing about other peoples lives and experiences.

If you want dirty, flirtatious chat thats fine, if you'd rather get to know me....even better :)

Ping me now!

J