Is Homosexuality Unnatural? Defending Homosexuals And Their Right To Love And Are Natural As You And Me.

[HydrogenBond]

Instead of pretending helplessness, then demonizing the messenger, to avoid facing the truth, do a Google search to me prove otherwise. The game of censor by demonizing the messenger has reached the end of its effectiveness. Here is an another link based own these search parameters; suicide rates rise among gay youth. This link is from the LGB community. Unless they are doctoring their own studies, they confirm many aspects of the first reference and offer more detail, without any fear of PC attack, since they are under the wing of bias. 

 

http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/facts-about-suicide

 

I posted this not to make fun, or point the finger of blame, but because suicide is a tragic thing. It is more important than political affiliation or blind devotion to political traditions. It is not about sweeping things under the rug and censoring the truth to maintain a political agenda. 

 

Between the two studies, they show male suicide among the youth has increased four fold over the last 60 years. The first study attributes this to social pressure and lack of coping skills. If social and peer pressures, and lack of coping skills are the given explanation, then what specific set of peer pressures and lack of coping skills explains the significant rise in male suicide? 

 

What type of peer pressure has been placed on males, over the past 60 years, which also limits their adaption, and which political party started and continues to preach this? I will answer this with a question. Doesn't the left assume the traditional male of 60 years ago is source of evil, and  wouldn't the left prefer the modern male child play with dolls and be an emotional wreck who has no identity, as a traditional male; when males had a low suicide rate? 

 

As an extrapolation of the two studies, say you were a gay male (redundant) and you feel peer pressure about being gay. This is sales pitched from the left. This can't be as bad as 60 years ago, or else there would not have been any need to liberate the gays, so it is worse now. Unless the goal was to make things worse for the gays.

 

But also, since gay men are attracted to other males; straight and/or gay, and healthy traditional males who able are able to cope, are considered evil based on the philosophy of the left, the gays have fewer places to learn to cope. They are caged in on all sides with the only path allowed by the left making it harder to cope. They live in world that the left has made worse for them; left says more peer pressure, and that which they love is call the evil sex; male, by the left. One would expect higher suicides for gays, which is, sadly, the case.

 

The left is not the friend of the gays, since it demonizes your object of desire and love and has added extra stressors, since they claim this is the worse of times in terms of your stress. This was all done to divide people, irrationally, for political gain. The ends justify the means so the suicide becomes a prop they try not to address, since they need this prop. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by HydrogenBond

[exchemist]

Instead of pretending helplessness, then demonizing the messenger, to avoid facing the truth, do a Google search to me prove otherwise. The game of censor by demonizing the messenger has reached the end of its effectiveness. Here is an another link based own these search parameters; suicide rates rise among gay youth. This link is from the LGB community. Unless they are doctoring their own studies, they confirm many aspects of the first reference and offer more detail, without any fear of PC attack, since they are under the wing of bias. 

 

http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/facts-about-suicide

 

I posted this not to make fun, or point the finger of blame, but because suicide is a tragic thing. It is more important than political affiliation or blind devotion to political traditions. It is not about sweeping things under the rug and censoring the truth to maintain a political agenda. 

 

Between the two studies, they show male suicide among the youth has increased four fold over the last 60 years. The first study attributes this to social pressure and lack of coping skills. If social and peer pressures, and lack of coping skills are the given explanation, then what specific set of peer pressures and lack of coping skills explains the significant rise in male suicide? 

 

What type of peer pressure has been placed on males, over the past 60 years, which also limits their adaption, and which political party started and continues to preach this? I will answer this with a question. Doesn't the left assume the traditional male of 60 years ago is source of evil, and  wouldn't the left prefer the modern male child play with dolls and be an emotional wreck who has no identity, as a traditional male; when males had a low suicide rate? 

 

As an extrapolation of the two studies, say you were a gay male (redundant) and you feel peer pressure about being gay. This is sales pitched from the left. This can't be as bad as 60 years ago, or else there would not have been any need to liberate the gays, so it is worse now. Unless the goal was to make things worse for the gays.

 

But also, since gay men are attracted to other males; straight and/or gay, and healthy traditional males who able are able to cope, are considered evil based on the philosophy of the left, the gays have fewer places to learn to cope. They are caged in on all sides with the only path allowed by the left making it harder to cope. They live in world that the left has made worse for them; left says more peer pressure, and that which they love is call the evil sex; male, by the left. One would expect higher suicides for gays, which is, sadly, the case.

 

The left is not the friend of the gays, since it demonizes your object of desire and love and has added extra stressors, since they claim this is the worse of times in terms of your stress. This was all done to divide people, irrationally, for political gain. The ends justify the means so the suicide becomes a prop they try not to address, since they need this prop. 

Ballocks! The first study you quoted said nothing at all about rates over time, as my post in response made clear. And nor does this either. 

 

You are in fact lying about both of them. I do not often accuse other posters of lying but in this case I can see no alternative interpretation, as it is quite plain that neither of them contains any information supporting your notions about increase in suicide rate. 

[CraigD]

Instead of pretending helplessness, then demonizing the messenger, to avoid facing the truth, do a Google search to me prove otherwise. The game of censor by demonizing the messenger has reached the end of its effectiveness. Here is an another link based own these search parameters ... http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/facts-about-suicide

As exchemist notes, this link doesn’t support your claim

The high rate of suicide and addiction in the gay community, shows a lot of overcompensation. Over the past 30 years, with homosexual becoming more main stream, this has not subsided.

You are not being demonized as a messenger of the truth, simply being asked to support this claim. Unlike many of the unsupported claims you have been sanctioned for in the past, this is not one that a reader can quickly research themselves. Statistics of changes in suicide rate in subpopulations defined by such things as sexual orientation are difficult to find – I’m fairly good at such research, and have spent over an hour at it, and have done no better than find this 2008 paper, which has a promising wealth of references to primary sources, but I think would take hours to further study.

 

I posted this not to make fun, or point the finger of blame, but because suicide is a tragic thing. It is more important than political affiliation or blind devotion to political traditions. It is not about sweeping things under the rug and censoring the truth to maintain a political agenda.

I agree. The truth, which depends sound statistics about changes in suicide rate that can be used to judge the effectiveness of government, institutional and psychotherapeutic policies and models, is complicated, controversial, and critical.

 

There has been a dramatic transformation in the last 100 years in the legal, medical, and scientific disciplines of psychology regarding how best to assure the health and wellbeing of homosexuals, from being considered a physiological, psychological, and/or moral abnormality that should be cured by using social institutions and pressures, legal punishment, psychotherapy, drugs, and surgery to cause homosexuals to become heterosexual or asexual, to considering homosexuality an acceptable human behavior with special social, legal, and psychological support needs.

 

I would describe the present consensus on how best to do this as one promoting openness: that its best for individual homosexuals and society as a whole for homosexuals sexual orientation to be openly declared – “outed” and accepted, not kept secret – “closeted”. As a person who hold the core moral belief that “the truth will set you free”, I feel this view is right, but as a rational and compassionate person, I worry that how it is being promoted may be causing harm and untimely death.

 

It’s easy to apply the “truth will set you free” principle to council a young homosexual that they should come out and freely and proudly declare their sexual orientation, but this easy decision is complicate by considering the real world consequences that may attend such a choice. In many places, such as where I grew up in rural West Virginia, I would not council a young homosexual to come out without first being confident that they were brave, competent, and supported enough to prevail against social and in some cases physical attacks. Being offensive, which in some places being openly gay is, can be dangerous. There are cases of gay people being bullied into suicide. There are cases of them being physically attacked and even murdered.

 

In the long run, I believe our civilization has begun, and will continue, to change in such a way that nearly all people stop feeling offended by and socially or physically attacking homosexuals, but I don’t believe it has yet reached this point. I believe that an important factor in promoting this progress is for gay people who are able to be open about their sexual orientation, and insistent that they should not be consider criminal or immoral, and should have all the rights and privileges afforded heterosexuals.

 

I don’t believe that the existence of homosexuals is an indicator that social and governmental policies are harming society, and that efforts should be made to reduce the number of homosexual people.

 

Good scientific data is needed, though, to inform us as to what attitudes and policies can best promote the progress of society to one where people of all genders and sexual orientations can have the best lives. We need to be able to know when a given approach or policy is helping, and when it is harming. We need evidence and science, not moralizing rhetoric.

[DianeG]

If it comes from nature, it's natural.

 

There are lots of different kinds of phenotypical variations in nature, and whether one labels them a disorder or defect of some kind usually depends on whether they cause suffering or dysfunction. Even a word like "normal" is not very helpful, since some phenotypes are less common than average, but we don't consider them disorders - for example, being left handed, having blue eyes, having AB blood. I would classify homosexuality in the same way - a variant, not a disorder. 

 

The question that makes people sometimes wonder about whether homosexuality is "natural" is why it would not be selected out in evolution, since homosexual men would be less likely to reproduce. One interesting theory I came across was that homosexuality in men might be related to a gene variant on the X chromosome that is reproductively advantageous when it appears in women, but not in men. The gene  never comes to dominate the population, but never entirely gets selected out either.

 

 In the book Genome (p 117) Matt Riddley explains that "One candidate is a region Xq28 on the tip of the long arm of the chromosome. Gay men shared this same version of this marker seventy percent of the time; straight men shared a different marker version of this marker seventy-five percent of the time. Statistically, that ruled out coincidence with ninety-nine per cent confidence." He goes on to say "because an X chromosome spends twice as much time in women as it does men, a sexually antagonistic gene that benefited female fertility could survive even if it had twice the as large a deleterious effect on male fertility."

 

All of this is somewhat hypothetical - Ridley did not say what genes in this region actually do. There may be other genes involved as well. Subsequent studies have given mixed results.

 

But it is, I think, a helpful explanation why a genetic phenotype might survive in a population when it would seemingly be a disadvantage in some way, and there are other examples of this phenomena in genetics. 

Edited January 28, 2017 by DianeG

[exchemist]

If it comes from nature, it's natural.

 

There are lots of different kinds of phenotypical variations in nature, and whether one labels them a disorder or defect of some kind usually depends on whether they cause suffering or dysfunction. Even a word like "normal" is not very helpful, since some phenotypes are less common than average, but we don't consider them disorders - for example, being left handed, having blue eyes, having AB blood. I would classify homosexuality in the same way - a variant, not a disorder. 

 

The question that makes people sometimes wonder about whether homosexuality is "natural" is why it would not be selected out in evolution, since homosexual men would be less likely to reproduce. One interesting theory I came across was that homosexuality in men might be related to a gene variant on the X chromosome that is reproductively advantageous when it appears in women, but not in men. The gene  never comes to dominate the population, but never entirely gets selected out either.

 

 In the book Genome (p 117) Matt Riddley explains that "One candidate is a region Xq28 on the tip of the long arm of the chromosome. Gay men shared this same version of this marker seventy percent of the time; straight men shared a different marker version of this marker seventy-five percent of the time. Statistically, that ruled out coincidence with ninety-nine per cent confidence." He goes on to say "because an X chromosome spends twice as much time in women as it does men, a sexually antagonistic gene that benefited female fertility could survive even if it had twice the as large a deleterious effect on male fertility."

 

All of this is somewhat hypothetical - Ridley did not say what genes in this region actually do. There may be other genes involved as well. Subsequent studies have given mixed results.

 

But it is, I think, a helpful explanation why a genetic phenotype might survive in a population when it would seemingly be a disadvantage in some way, and there are other examples of this phenomena in genetics. 

Off-topic, but hello Diane, how nice to hear from you again! 

[HempGraphene]

​Hi guys, I didn't know I was going to find this kind of staff in a science forum...

 

The title of the topic is absolutely not at my taste. I'm not forced to defend homosexuals.

I don't enter a forum with the intention of submiting to whatever belief most people generally have.

The practice of homosexuality is something that disgusts me utterly and for me that's 0% "natural".

Biology is not a philosophical debate when biotechnologies are not involved...my take !

 

If you disagree completely with me, it's OK, just make your point and continue your life.

Let's not ban people as long as they don't invite others to physical violence...Agreed ? 

[exchemist]

​Hi guys, I didn't know I was going to find this kind of staff in a science forum...

 

The title of the topic is absolutely not at my taste. I'm not forced to defend homosexuals.

I don't enter a forum with the intention of submiting to whatever belief most people generally have.

The practice of homosexuality is something that disgusts me utterly and for me that's 0% "natural".

Biology is not a philosophical debate when biotechnologies are not involved...my take !

 

If you disagree completely with me, it's OK, just make your point and continue your life.

Let's not ban people as long as they don't invite others to physical violence...Agreed ? 

Not necessarily, no.

 

This is a science forum and that entails an expectation that people are likely to judge propositions on their scientific merits, rather than merely on the basis of personal subjective emotion, as you are doing.

 

As for banning people from forums, that may be done for various reasons, most of which have nothing to do with incitement to physical violence,  not least because it is damned hard to inflict physical violence on someone at the other end of an internet connection who lives several thousand km away. Most bans are for disruptive behaviour or dissemination of obnoxious ideas.  

[Zina]

Homosexuality is normal, theres a documentary about it on youtube even, really interesting, and it's not like it's the homosexuality itself that causes STDs but the act of not being careful, Stds spread between anyone whatever sexuality ( but duh thats logic ), I honestly can't wrap my head around people who argue against homosexuality and bisexuality with that it is unnatural, seems they need to educate themselves a bit.

[HempGraphene]

"I honestly can't wrap my head around people who argue against homosexuality and bisexuality with that it is unnatural, seems they need to educate themselves a bit."

 

​Oh my God !!! You just expressed the exact reverse of each & everything I feel and think about homosexuality...

​xD loool I mean for real man, you just reverse completely the meaning of that phrase & you get my mind and all the friends I know of in this bloody planet !!!

​

​Freaking MADNESS in this world...   Hey guys I just got a genius idea, let's all walk on our hands today in the name of tolerance, okay ???

​And if anybody dares to walk on its feet, let's call him an intolerant & retarded religious fanatic from the middle ages !!!

​

Screw these old fashioned dudes, all marrying women and staff, BORING !

When you can import illegal immigrant rabbits who vote left wing : why reproduce ?

​Cheers to all of you psychedelic mushrooms eaters !  :cocktail:

[pzkpfw]

Screw these old fashioned dudes, all marrying women and staff, BORING !

Yikes. Calm down. "Natural" in this sense doesn't mean you have to be the same. You can happily go on being heterosexual, because that's who you are.

 

Some people, however, happen to be different in their sexuality than you.

 

Freedom and equality applies to them, all they deserve from you or anyone, is the same peace and happiness. That's the point of "equality". If everyone was the same, there'd be no need to talk of equality - everyone would have the same rights by default.

 

It used to be that left handed people could have their left hand tied to their desk at school, to force them to write with their right hand like "normal" people. (Look up what "sinister" means).

 

We now accept that left handed people just happen to be left handed. That some people still have the same outdated ideas about homosexuality is just a sign that we've some way to go yet before freedom and equality are fully applied.

[billvon]

The title of the topic is absolutely not at my taste. I'm not forced to defend homosexuals.

That is correct.

 

The practice of homosexuality is something that disgusts me utterly and for me that's 0% "natural".

 

Given that over 200 species of mammals exhibit homosexuality naturally, that is arguably untrue.

 

Biology is not a philosophical debate when biotechnologies are not involved...my take !

 

And yet you are having such a debate.  You are free to refrain from posting on the topic.

[HempGraphene]

"Given that over 200 species of mammals exhibit homosexuality naturally, that is arguably untrue."

 

​Hey Billvon, are you comparing Human beings with...freaking ANIMALS !!! :dog: ??? xD

​I won't even answear that dude, that's just point blank gross...I think you missed toddler biology 101.

​Please receive my full compassion for the horrible schooling you seem to have received when younger !

 

​Anyway, we can see that human immunology itself pays a big price for all that nice philosophical peotry you guys enjoy to sing :

 

 

For millions of years species have evolved under the heavy hand of natural selection, and currently, these people are being selected OUT.

That's why we need to council these people correctly in going back to the very Nature that make it possible for them to exist in the first place.

Oh because you see, them too were born from the union of a Man & and a Woman. No heterosexuality, No perpetuity of the species.

"Reproduction" : that's scientific ! The rest is just mondain people trying desperately to be liked by all people, even if it means eating ****.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/

 

 

[pzkpfw]

Hey Billvon, are you comparing Human beings with...freaking ANIMALS !!!

We are animals.

 

I think you missed toddler biology 101.

If you don't like toddler biology, it would be nice if you could discuss the issue as an adult.

 

That's why we need to council these people correctly in going back to the very Nature that make it possible for them to exist in the first place.

That's exactly the kind of ignorance that makes this discussion worth having.

 

You can't "counsel" a homosexual person into being heterosexual. The assumption that you can is what leads to all sorts of sad situations for people. If someone is homosexual, that's just part of who they are.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

Edited March 5, 2017 by pzkpfw

[billvon]

"Given that over 200 species of mammals exhibit homosexuality naturally, that is arguably untrue."

 

​Hey Billvon, are you comparing Human beings with...freaking ANIMALS !

Nope.  Not comparing; we ARE animals.  (We're certainly not plants.)  Your claim was that homosexuality was unnatural; since hundreds of mammals exhibit homosexuality, that is false.

For millions of years species have evolved under the heavy hand of natural selection, and currently, these people are being selected OUT.

 

So your claim is that homosexuality is unnatural and useless, but after millions of years of evolution it has NOT been selected out?  You have some serious problems with your theory, in that case.

 

It sounds more and more like you are a victim of someone's right wing ideology. 

[JMJones0424]

Anyway, we can see that human immunology itself pays a big price for all that nice philosophical peotry you guys enjoy to sing :

 

 

 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/

Thank you for providing such a clear-cut example of confirmation bias.  Anyone that chose to review the source you provided as support for your claim could easily identify your error.  For instance, you do not account for the disparate trends of new HIV diagnoses in black, white, and hispanic populations of men in the US.  Given your source, it is a fact that men that have sex with men are more likely to transmit HIV than those that have heterosexual contact.  However, you have entirely failed to limit the variables in your hypothesis that butt sex is bad for health reasons.  Why do you suppose that the color of ones' skin is a variable in this equation?  Could it not be that the environment and the culture that one exists in might also be influential?  Doesn't this fit more appropriately to the data than your assertion that "we can see that human immunology itself pays a big price for all that nice philosophical peotry you guys enjoy to sing"

 

Sometimes facts can be gross.  What separates some humans from other animals is our ability to use reason to evaluate a situation rather than just the cultural ick factor that we were raised with.

Edited March 7, 2017 by JMJones0424

[DianeG]

Hempgraphene, unless you can add something even remotely scientific to the discussion besides your personal preferences, you'll be dismissed as a troll. And incidentally, an explanation for how genetic traits can persist in a population, when they might seem to be a survival or reproductive disadvantage, was already provided, but not addressed by you. I might also add that the argument that natural selection has completely stopped simply because of the intervention of modern medicine, is also false. Many genomicists assert that the exponential increase in human population in the last few centuries actually gives evolution more kicks at the can, so to speak, and increases the likelihood of positive selection of traits. What's more humans are actively working to reduce the occurrence and inheritance of certain deleterious genes, (like say Huntington's disease). You might not consider that "natural" selection in the direct sense, but it never the less is behavior that affects future genetic inheritance. 

 

ps. Humans are  animals too. For future reference:

 

Domain: Eukaryota (unranked): Unikonta (unranked): Opisthokonta Kingdom: Animalia Subkingdom: Eumetazoa Superphylum: Deuterostomia Phylum: Chordata Subphylum: Vertebrata Infraphylum: Gnathostomata (unranked): Amniota (unranked): Synapsida Class: Mammalia Subclass: Theriiformes Infraclass: Eutheria Magnorder: Boreoeutheria Superorder: Euarchontoglires (unranked): Primatomorpha Order: Primates Suborder: Haplorrhini Infraorder: Simiiformes Parvorder: Catarrhini Superfamily: Hominoidea Family: Hominidae Subfamily: Homininae Tribe: Hominini Subtribe: Hominina Genus: Homo Species: Homo sapiens Subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens

Edited March 8, 2017 by DianeG