Hey Democrats...

[homersapien 11,415]

3 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Nothing about science or history tells us that homosexuality is normal.  We live to procreate and populate the earth. Otherwise the species will die out. That is not normal. Although a significant amount of leftists do want the human race eradicated so we can save the planet.

Damn, you aren't just pompous, you're ignorant to boot. Not a good combination. 

(And considering the last sentence, I could add idiotic.)

Edited October 18, 2021 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,058]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Damn, you aren't just pompous, you're ignorant to boot. Not a good combination. 

(And considering the last sentence, I could add idiotic.)

Nothing on the post just insults. I'll consider it a win.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

From the reigning master of disingenuous interpretation!

 

I know you are, but what am I?

(Did I do that right?)

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

But history and science - not to mention simple common sense - tells us it is normal, if not particularly common. 

Who are you to proclaim otherwise?

Exactly how does history and common sense tell us that?

I understand how "science" supposedly tells us that.  Unlike many who opine on the subject, I've done a bit of looking into the "research" that supposedly caused the scientific community to reverse its previous opinion that homosexuality was abnormal. 

It's not very impressive.  A lot of self-describing surveys and the like.  So my opinion is that the shift was a social one, not a scientific one, but I'd be happy to look at whatever research you'd like to offer that I might not know about that makes a strong case for homosexual normalcy.

We know that homosexual couples (of both types) have higher rates of domestic violence and promiscuity, and specifically with regard to male same-sex couples, the rate of promiscuity is immense compared to male/female couples.  To the point that either partner in a male/female dynamic with as many different sexual partners as the average gay male allegedly has would probably be suspected of suffering from a sex addiction.

We also know that lesbian women have higher rates of breast cancer and while they have multiple risk factors contributing to it, one of those that is recognized by the medical community is the fact that they don't have children, so their hormones do not change and cycle like most straight women.  And of course gay men have higher rates of HIV/AIDS, anal papilloma and anal cancer from other causes, hepatitis, prostate, testicular, and colon cancer, and both gay men and lesbian women have higher rates of depression, suicide, substance abuse, and body image mental disorders, such as bulimia, anorexia, and compulsive overeating than straight people.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that homosexuality isn't really very healthy and usually things that aren't healthy are also considered not normal. 

So I Iook forward to hearing how it's common sense that homosexuality is normal and healthy.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[AU9377 5,018]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Nothing about science or history tells us that homosexuality is normal.  We live to procreate and populate the earth. Otherwise the species will die out. That is not normal. Although a significant amount of leftists do want the human race eradicated so we can save the planet.

Do you deny that over population may be problematic?  Does it not make common sense that nature would have mechanisms to curtail population growth in some way? 

We have to understand what we can and that understanding has to be formed based on what we know to be fact and what we can conclude based on those facts.  One fact that we can all agree on is that being gay is not some new development that came to be in the last century.  There have been homosexual human beings throughout the history of the human race.  That has never been nor will ever be a threat to procreation. 

I am assuming that you are not claiming that anyone that doesn't reproduce is not a valuable member of society.  The earth is populated and the human race is not endangered, if you haven't noticed. 

How do we define normal? Normal is defined as something being the standard over time, usual or to be expected.  We have established the fact that a certain percentage of births will result in an offspring that is sexually attracted to the same sex during puberty and into adulthood. We know that this has been the case going back centuries.  If that does not establish something as "normal" in the course of human behavior, I don't know what does.

The fact is that, not unlike many other traits that society labeled as undesirable, gay people were forced to deny who they were or risk being prosecuted and even executed for something that they had no control over.  They were simply born.  Imagine being born and reaching puberty, only to be told that as a heterosexual you were forbidden from being attracted to the opposite sex.  Would placing you in a marriage with another man all of a sudden remove your attraction to women?  Of course it wouldn't, yet that is what society expected from gay men for centuries.

[AU9377 5,018]

31 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Exactly how does history and common sense tell us that?

I understand how "science" supposedly tells us that.  Unlike many who opine on the subject, I've done a bit of looking into the "research" that supposedly caused the scientific community to reverse its previous opinion that homosexuality was abnormal. 

It's not very impressive.  A lot of self-describing surveys and the like.  So my opinion is that the shift was a social one, not a scientific one, but I'd be happy to look at whatever research you'd like to offer that I might not know about that makes a strong case for homosexual normalcy.

We know that homosexual couples (of both types) have higher rates of domestic violence and promiscuity, and specifically with regard to male same-sex couples, the rate of promiscuity is immense compared to male/female couples.  To the point that either partner in a male/female dynamic with as many different sexual partners as the average gay male allegedly has would probably be suspected of suffering from a sex addiction.

We also know that lesbian women have higher rates of breast cancer and while they have multiple risk factors contributing to it, one of those that is recognized by the medical community is the fact that they don't have children, so their hormones do not change and cycle like most straight women.  And of course gay men have higher rates of HIV/AIDS, anal papilloma and anal cancer from other causes, hepatitis, prostate, testicular, and colon cancer, and both gay men and lesbian women have higher rates of depression, suicide, substance abuse, and body image mental disorders, such as bulimia, anorexia, and compulsive overeating than straight people.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that homosexuality isn't really very healthy and usually things that aren't healthy are also considered not normal. 

So I Iook forward to hearing how it's common sense that homosexuality is normal and healthy.

See my post above.  I am rushed for time, but I will respond to the bizarre disease assertions later today.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

See my post above.  I am rushed for time, but I will respond to the bizarre disease assertions later today.

Please do.  I am interested in how medical facts may be spun as "bizarre."

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Do you deny that over population may be problematic?  Does it not make common sense that nature would have mechanisms to curtail population growth in some way? 

We have to understand what we can and that understanding has to be formed based on what we know to be fact and what we can conclude based on those facts.  One fact that we can all agree on is that being gay is not some new development that came to be in the last century.  There have been homosexual human beings throughout the history of the human race.  That has never been nor will ever be a threat to procreation. 

I am assuming that you are not claiming that anyone that doesn't reproduce is not a valuable member of society.  The earth is populated and the human race is not endangered, if you haven't noticed. 

How do we define normal? Normal is defined as something being the standard over time, usual or to be expected.  We have established the fact that a certain percentage of births will result in an offspring that is sexually attracted to the same sex during puberty and into adulthood. We know that this has been the case going back centuries.  If that does not establish something as "normal" in the course of human behavior, I don't know what does.

The fact is that, not unlike many other traits that society labeled as undesirable, gay people were forced to deny who they were or risk being prosecuted and even executed for something that they had no control over.  They were simply born.  Imagine being born and reaching puberty, only to be told that as a heterosexual you were forbidden from being attracted to the opposite sex.  Would placing you in a marriage with another man all of a sudden remove your attraction to women?  Of course it wouldn't, yet that is what society expected from gay men for centuries.

We also know that a similar percentage of people are and probably always have been psychopaths.  Around 2-3%.

So that means that psychopathy is normal?

EDIT:  And before you try, no, I am not comparing gays to psychopaths.  Clearly what I am doing is taking your reasoning and inserting another group that fits the same criteria you are using to "prove" that homosexuality is normal, namely, that it has always been around.  If that criteria is all that is necessary to prove normalcy, there are a whole lot of groups that are currently classified as being abnormal that are in fact normal.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[jj3jordan 2,058]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Do you deny that over population may be problematic?  Does it not make common sense that nature would have mechanisms to curtail population growth in some way? 

We have to understand what we can and that understanding has to be formed based on what we know to be fact and what we can conclude based on those facts.  One fact that we can all agree on is that being gay is not some new development that came to be in the last century.  There have been homosexual human beings throughout the history of the human race.  That has never been nor will ever be a threat to procreation. 

I am assuming that you are not claiming that anyone that doesn't reproduce is not a valuable member of society.  The earth is populated and the human race is not endangered, if you haven't noticed. 

How do we define normal? Normal is defined as something being the standard over time, usual or to be expected.  We have established the fact that a certain percentage of births will result in an offspring that is sexually attracted to the same sex during puberty and into adulthood. We know that this has been the case going back centuries.  If that does not establish something as "normal" in the course of human behavior, I don't know what does.

The fact is that, not unlike many other traits that society labeled as undesirable, gay people were forced to deny who they were or risk being prosecuted and even executed for something that they had no control over.  They were simply born.  Imagine being born and reaching puberty, only to be told that as a heterosexual you were forbidden from being attracted to the opposite sex.  Would placing you in a marriage with another man all of a sudden remove your attraction to women?  Of course it wouldn't, yet that is what society expected from gay men for centuries.

Yes. I flew around the world once or twice a month for 5 years. There are literally millions of square miles of land on this planet which can support many times the current population.  The earth is not overpopulated.

No I don’t think homosexuality was somehow produced by nature to control population. I do know that abortion does that job now exterminating the black population as decreed by Planned Parenthood.

Until you can show me the “gay gene” then science has not contributed to the normalization of homosexuality.  Science expresses platitudes designed to help rationalize gay people so they don’t feel convicted of their guilt.  Anything to help homosexuals believe that their sexual orientation is not a choice.  But they have failed to do so. 
 

Your hypothetical imagine you are hetero is atrocious. Imagine everything normal is abnormal, and everything good is bad (Christianity).  Imagine science invented gay dogs or cats to control overpopulation. Oh yeah that’s right there is no gayness in the wild. You know one of the big differences between humans and animals regarding sex? Humans are the only species who has a choice and control over their sexual activities. See how that works? Choice. Nobody wants to persecute gays. But don’t pretend that homosexuality is normal or natural. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

27 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Yes. I flew around the world once or twice a month for 5 years. There are literally millions of square miles of land on this planet which can support many times the current population.  The earth is not overpopulated.

No I don’t think homosexuality was somehow produced by nature to control population. I do know that abortion does that job now exterminating the black population as decreed by Planned Parenthood.

Until you can show me the “gay gene” then science has not contributed to the normalization of homosexuality.  Science expresses platitudes designed to help rationalize gay people so they don’t feel convicted of their guilt.  Anything to help homosexuals believe that their sexual orientation is not a choice.  But they have failed to do so. 
 

Your hypothetical imagine you are hetero is atrocious. Imagine everything normal is abnormal, and everything good is bad (Christianity).  Imagine science invented gay dogs or cats to control overpopulation. Oh yeah that’s right there is no gayness in the wild. You know one of the big differences between humans and animals regarding sex? Humans are the only species who has a choice and control over their sexual activities. See how that works? Choice. Nobody wants to persecute gays. But don’t pretend that homosexuality is normal or natural. 

Don't forget the dolphins man!! 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

10 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Don't forget the dolphins man!! 

When people claim that I always wonder if they think it's also normal for to try to screw inanimate objects since dogs will do it.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

When people claim that I always wonder if they think it's also normal for to try to screw inanimate objects since dogs will do it.

Dolphins are the only other mammals that have sex for pleasure. They also have their own equivalence of weed as well. LOL

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

4 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Dolphins are the only other mammals that have sex for pleasure. They also have their own equivalence of weed as well. LOL

I don't know about that.  Apes will masturbate and have oral sex.  That sounds like having sex for pleasure to me.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

4 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

 

Until you can show me the “gay gene” then science has not contributed to the normalization of homosexuality.  Science expresses platitudes designed to help rationalize gay people so they don’t feel convicted of their guilt.  Anything to help homosexuals believe that their sexual orientation is not a choice.  But they have failed to do so. 
 

I don't believe a homosexual orientation is a choice.  But of course that doesn't make it normal, either.  

[AU9377 5,018]

5 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Until you can show me the “gay gene” then science has not contributed to the normalization of homosexuality.  Science expresses platitudes designed to help rationalize gay people so they don’t feel convicted of their guilt.  Anything to help homosexuals believe that their sexual orientation is not a choice.  But they have failed to do so. 
 

Your hypothetical imagine you are hetero is atrocious. Imagine everything normal is abnormal, and everything good is bad (Christianity).  Imagine science invented gay dogs or cats to control overpopulation. Oh yeah that’s right there is no gayness in the wild. You know one of the big differences between humans and animals regarding sex? Humans are the only species who has a choice and control over their sexual activities. See how that works? Choice. Nobody wants to persecute gays. But don’t pretend that homosexuality is normal or natural. 

You assume that a gay person has a choice, yet you can't point to a time when you made a choice to be heterosexual.  Are you as attracted to men and women equally?  If so, your argument is valid.  If not, it simply fails. 

As for humans being the only species that has control over their sexual activities.... That is just factually incorrect.  Animals have been observed having sex with same sex partners in hundreds of other species. 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-is-same-sex-sexual-behavior-so-common-in-animals/

Finally, not everything that occurs has a genetic marker.  Even so, we should use a little common sense when looking at the issue.  Heterosexual people have been giving birth to gay children since the beginning of time.  That is a constant in every society on the planet.  You assume that people just want to be gay.  If that was true, why are there so many that would give anything to not be and to have the advantages that brings? 

Sexual attraction is sexual attraction.  Thank God that the majority of the free world is moving past the ridiculous need to find a defect in people when there is none.  Most churches are also realizing how trivial and against the word of God it is to exclude homosexuals from worshiping.  Even if it is viewed as a sin, it is no more sinful than divorce or adultery or a thousand other sins that are overlooked regularly.

[AU9377 5,018]

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

We also know that a similar percentage of people are and probably always have been psychopaths.  Around 2-3%.

So that means that psychopathy is normal?

EDIT:  And before you try, no, I am not comparing gays to psychopaths.  Clearly what I am doing is taking your reasoning and inserting another group that fits the same criteria you are using to "prove" that homosexuality is normal, namely, that it has always been around.  If that criteria is all that is necessary to prove normalcy, there are a whole lot of groups that are currently classified as being abnormal that are in fact normal.

I can actually respect your response here.  I suppose we could say that it is normal for a population to contain a certain percentage of psychopaths.

Regardless of what we call it or how we classify it, we know that heterosexual pairings will produce a fairly constant number of homosexual offspring.  Natural selection would have eliminated homosexuals from the population thousands of years ago if the trait was not a natural occurrence.  That is what I mean by natural.

I know a gay couple with three children.  They have 2 boys and a girl.  If the choice was there's to make, all three children would grow up to be straight and happily married with families of their own.  It isn't that they won't support any of them if they happen to be gay, of course they would, but they want what is best for them and part of that is wanting them to have the easiest path to happiness.  I always think of them when someone tries to argue that they had a choice to make with regard to being gay or not.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

8 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I can actually respect your response here.  I suppose we could say that it is normal for a population to contain a certain percentage of psychopaths.

First of all, thanks for reading what I wrote and responding objectively, and I say that with no sarcasm whatsoever.  I'd much rather sincerely discuss something with you that just joust.

To the subject matter, saying that it is normal for a population to contain a certain percentage of psychopaths doesn't mean that the individual psychopaths are normal.

We could say that it is normal for a population to contain a certain number of people with Down's Syndrome, for example.  But that doesn't mean the individuals with Down's Syndrome are what we consider to be normal.

I suspect since you ended up not responding to the physical/mental/emotional risks that being homosexual carries that you may have found those things hard to believe, looked them up, and learned that they are all true and that the mainstream medical community recognizes them as valid notable trends.

They suggest to me that considering homosexuality to be normal is a stretch.  Also—with respect specifically to gay men—the fact that sexual promiscuity is so high among that group that they basically have to have their own category for what's considered normal for that value—"Here's what's normal for gay men and here's what's normal for everyone else"—that also suggests abnormality to me.

I understand the impulse to classify homosexuality normal, btw.  I don't think homosexuality is anything anyone can control or has a choice about or can be "cured" of, and it deals with the expression of intimacy, which seems really rough to deny people.  And I get that telling gay people that it is abnormal to seek intimacy with someone of the same sex means that they are denied that sort of unique human intimacy (to the degree that they accept that statement, anyway), because they won't be able to just choose to create it with someone of the opposite sex.

So I understand why we do it.  It seems really cold not to.

But I also look at other (at least partially) genetic conditions such as anxiety disorders or people with OCD.  Those people aren't classified as abnormal people, but their conditions are recognized as medical disorders.

I guess it comes down to what is there to be gained by considering homosexuality abnormal and treating it that way.  

Admittedly, probably not much.

It's not likely that lesbian or gay people will end up having happier lives by learning to "manage" their impulses like someone with OCD or anxiety disorder will.  They'll just go without that special intimacy that sexual relationships can provide and they'll probably simply trade one set of mental/emotional issues for another due to forgoing that intimacy.

Perhaps the focus should be on helping homosexual people manage the additional challenges and risks that come with the territory.

In any case, it's a complex issue.

 

[TexasTiger 12,975]

59 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

First of all, thanks for reading what I wrote and responding objectively, and I say that with no sarcasm whatsoever.  I'd much rather sincerely discuss something with you that just joust.

To the subject matter, saying that it is normal for a population to contain a certain percentage of psychopaths doesn't mean that the individual psychopaths are normal.

We could say that it is normal for a population to contain a certain number of people with Down's Syndrome, for example.  But that doesn't mean the individuals with Down's Syndrome are what we consider to be normal.

I suspect since you ended up not responding to the physical/mental/emotional risks that being homosexual carries that you may have found those things hard to believe, looked them up, and learned that they are all true and that the mainstream medical community recognizes them as valid notable trends.

They suggest to me that considering homosexuality to be normal is a stretch.  Also—with respect specifically to gay men—the fact that sexual promiscuity is so high among that group that they basically have to have their own category for what's considered normal for that value—"Here's what's normal for gay men and here's what's normal for everyone else"—that also suggests abnormality to me.

I understand the impulse to classify homosexuality normal, btw.  I don't think homosexuality is anything anyone can control or has a choice about or can be "cured" of, and it deals with the expression of intimacy, which seems really rough to deny people.  And I get that telling gay people that it is abnormal to seek intimacy with someone of the same sex means that they are denied that sort of unique human intimacy (to the degree that they accept that statement, anyway), because they won't be able to just choose to create it with someone of the opposite sex.

So I understand why we do it.  It seems really cold not to.

But I also look at other (at least partially) genetic conditions such as anxiety disorders or people with OCD.  Those people aren't classified as abnormal people, but their conditions are recognized as medical disorders.

I guess it comes down to what is there to be gained by considering homosexuality abnormal and treating it that way.  

Admittedly, probably not much.

It's not likely that lesbian or gay people will end up having happier lives by learning to "manage" their impulses like someone with OCD or anxiety disorder will.  They'll just go without that special intimacy that sexual relationships can provide and they'll probably simply trade one set of mental/emotional issues for another due to forgoing that intimacy.

Perhaps the focus should be on helping homosexual people manage the additional challenges and risks that come with the territory.

In any case, it's a complex issue.

 

Is the primary thing keeping many straight men from being promiscuous a sufficient lack of partners with the same inclination? 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

27 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Is the primary thing keeping many straight men from being promiscuous a sufficient lack of partners with the same inclination? 

I think that's certainly part of it.  Testosterone absolutely increases sex drive (which is why women get more willing when they are drunk—the alcohol raises their testosterone levels...it's also why men fight when drunk), but I don't think it's all of it.  Just my personal opinion.

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[TexasTiger 12,975]

12 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I think that's certainly part of it.  Testosterone absolutely increases sex drive (which is why women get more willing when they are drunk—the alcohol raises their testosterone levels...it's also why men fight when drunk), but I don't think it's all of it.  Just my personal opinion.

 

Are you saying all or most gay men are promiscuous?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

44 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Is the primary thing keeping many straight men from being promiscuous a sufficient lack of partners with the same inclination? 

Is this really even a thing? There are tons of women with the same inclination. 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Are you saying all or most gay men are promiscuous?

Not all, for sure.

And actually, I learned something this morning.  The latest research seems to indicate that previous estimates of the number of sexual partners for gay men may have been historically inflated due to the methods of capturing the data.

I think the data-capture methods used to declare homosexuality normal are historically weak, but I'm also just as happy to note when the methods for suggesting otherwise are weak.

So my comments above were based upon older and potentially flawed information.  Full disclosure.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Is this really even a thing? There are tons of women with the same inclination. 

^ Can confirm from my single days.

[homersapien 11,415]

20 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Exactly how does history and common sense tell us that?

I understand how "science" supposedly tells us that.  Unlike many who opine on the subject, I've done a bit of looking into the "research" that supposedly caused the scientific community to reverse its previous opinion that homosexuality was abnormal. 

It's not very impressive.  A lot of self-describing surveys and the like.  So my opinion is that the shift was a social one, not a scientific one, but I'd be happy to look at whatever research you'd like to offer that I might not know about that makes a strong case for homosexual normalcy.

We know that homosexual couples (of both types) have higher rates of domestic violence and promiscuity, and specifically with regard to male same-sex couples, the rate of promiscuity is immense compared to male/female couples.  To the point that either partner in a male/female dynamic with as many different sexual partners as the average gay male allegedly has would probably be suspected of suffering from a sex addiction.

We also know that lesbian women have higher rates of breast cancer and while they have multiple risk factors contributing to it, one of those that is recognized by the medical community is the fact that they don't have children, so their hormones do not change and cycle like most straight women.  And of course gay men have higher rates of HIV/AIDS, anal papilloma and anal cancer from other causes, hepatitis, prostate, testicular, and colon cancer, and both gay men and lesbian women have higher rates of depression, suicide, substance abuse, and body image mental disorders, such as bulimia, anorexia, and compulsive overeating than straight people.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that homosexuality isn't really very healthy and usually things that aren't healthy are also considered not normal. 

So I Iook forward to hearing how it's common sense that homosexuality is normal and healthy.

Perhaps "natural" would be a better word than "normal" in describing homosexuality. 

 

How Older Brothers Influence Homosexuality

Homosexuality might be partly driven by a mother’s immune response to her male fetus—which increases with each son she has.

By Olga Khazan

Here’s what we know: Homosexuality is normal. Between 2 and 11 percent of human adults report experiencing some homosexual feelings, though the figure varies widely depending on the survey.

Homosexuality exists across cultures and even throughout the animal kingdom, as the authors of a mammoth new review paper on homosexuality write. Between 6 and 10 percent of rams prefer to mount other rams, not ewes. Certain groups of female Japanese monkeys prefer the company of other females:

In certain populations, female Japanese macaques will sometimes choose other females as sexual partners despite the presence of sexually motivated male mates. Female Japanese macaques will even compete intersexually with males for exclusive access to female sexual partners.

Here’s what we don’t know: What, specifically, causes someone to become gay, straight, or something in between. Part of the explanation is genetic, but because most identical twins of gay people are straight, heredity doesn’t explain everything.

The “why” question is important because “there is a strong correlation between beliefs about the origins of sexual orientation and tolerance of non-heterosexuality,” according to the report authors, who are from seven universities spanning the globe. Specifically, people who believe sexual orientation is biological are more likely to favor equal rights for sexual minorities. (When Atlantic contributor Chandler Burr proposed in his 1996 book, A Separate Creation, that people are born gay, Southern Baptists called to boycott Disney films and parks in protest against the publisher, Disney subsidiary Hyperion.) It shouldn’t matter whether people “choose” to be gay, but politically, it does—at least for now.

One of the most consistent environmental explanations for homosexuality is called the “fraternal birth order effect.” Essentially, the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. The effect doesn’t hold for older or younger sisters, younger brothers, or even for adoptive brothers or stepbrothers.

According to Ray Blanchard, a psychiatry professor at the University of Toronto, the reason could be that the mother’s body mounts an immune attack on the fetus of her unborn son. As the report authors explain:

Male fetuses carry male-specific proteins on their Y chromosome, called H-Y antigens. Blanchard hypothesized that some of these antigens promote the development of heterosexual orientation in males … Because these H-Y antigens are not present in the mother’s body, they trigger the production of maternal antibodies. These antibodies bind to the H-Y antigens and prevent them from functioning.

With the H-Y antigens not functioning, it could be that the “be straight” signal in the fetus’s brain never flicks on.

Blanchard believes that this phenomenon grows stronger with each boy a woman bears. Studies have found that a man without older brothers has about a 2 percent chance of being gay, but one with four older brothers has a 6 percent chance. (Meanwhile, other studies have found the relationship to be weak or nonexistent.) As psychologist Ritch Savin-Williams writes in an accompanying commentary, the outcome for any given baby boy might depend on the timing of the immune response and the fetus’s susceptibility to the antibodies.

Average prevalence in 2013 (Savin-Williams and Vrangalova)

According to the report, Blanchard now plans to test mothers of gay and straight men for the presence of these antibodies. If proved out, fetal birth order could do a lot to fill in the missing explanations for homosexuality. But gaps will remain, such as why some firstborn sons are gay, why some identical twins of gay sons are straight, and why women are gay, to name just a few.

The review-paper authors do rule out one explanation for homosexuality, however: That tolerance for gay people encourages more people to become gay.

“Homosexual orientation does not increase in frequency with social tolerance, although its expression (in behavior and in open identification) may do so,” they write.

That reasoning—that a tolerant society somehow encourages homosexuality to flourish—has been used to support anti-gay legislation in Uganda, Russia, and elsewhere. These laws do marginalize and shame gay people, the authors write. But they won’t do away with a sexual orientation that’s ubiquitous, enduring, and—whether through genes, or hormones, or antibodies—perfectly natural.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/gay-brothers/480117/

(emphasis mine)

 

Being Gay Is Just as Healthy as Being Straight

Evelyn Hooker's pioneering research debunked the popular myth that homosexuals are inherently less mentally healthy than heterosexuals, leading to significant changes in how psychology views and treats people who are gay.

Findings

In the 1950's, Dr. Evelyn Hooker studied 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study. Dr. Hooker administered three projective tests, which measure people's patterns of thoughts, attitudes, and emotions--the Rorschach, in which people describe what they see in abstract ink blots, the Thematic Apperception Test [TAT] and the Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test), in which people tell stories about different pictures. Unaware of each subject's sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men's overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents' sexual orientation at a level better than chance. A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexual and heterosexuals did not differ significantly." Based on these findings, Dr. Hooker tentatively suggested that homosexuals were as psychologically normal as heterosexuals.

Significance

Hooker's work was the first to empirically test the assumption that gay men were mentally unhealthy and maladjusted. The fact that no differences were found between gay and straight participants sparked more research in this area and began to dismantle the myth that homosexual men and women are inherently unhealthy.

Practical Application

In conjunction with other empirical results, this work led the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 (it had been listed as a sociopathic personality disorder). In 1975, the American Psychological Association publicly supported this move, stating that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities…(and mental health professionals should) take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness long associated with homosexual orientation." Although prejudice and stigma still exist in society, this research has helped millions of gay men and women gain acceptance in the mental health community.

Cited Research

Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18-31.

Additional Sources

Bohan, J. S. (1996). Psychology and sexual orientation: Coming to terms. New York: Routledge.

---

American Psychological Association, May 28, 2003

 

 

Homosexuality is not a disease

01/08/2019 – by Sheila Mysorekar

The stigmatisation and discrimination of gay people may lead to mental-health problems – but homosexuality in itself is not a mental-health problem. That is the scientific consensus and endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO).

A large body of scientific evidence indicates that being LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersexual) is completely compatible with a normal and healthy life. Clinical literature shows that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings and behaviours are sound. They are perfectly acceptable variations of human sexuality.

The WHO has a list of diseases, called the “International Classification of Diseases” (ICD). This list is reviewed regularly, in accordance with the latest medical research. In 1977, ICD-9 still listed homosexuality as a disease. However, the WHO later removed the item from the list. The 43rd World Health Assembly endorsed that decision in May 1990. Therefore, the currently used ICD-10 explicitly states that “sexual orientation by itself is not to be considered a disorder.”

Although the WHO has taken homosexuality off its list of diseases, other forms of discrimination still remain, says Susan Cochran, a psychologist and epidemiologist at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA): “Although being gay or lesbian is no longer classified as a disorder, in its place emerged new categories of ‘gay-related’ diseases.”

For example, homophobia can make teenagers feel harassed and hopeless – and that may add up to the symptoms of clinical depression. Cochran points out that the people concerned are sometimes “classified as mentally ill under current WHO guidelines”. Such second-order mental-health issues are being considered in the preparations for ICD-11.

Sexual orientation continues to be a contentious topic: internationally, expressions of same-sex orientation are stigmatised. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uganda and Russia have enacted anti-LGBTI laws. This stigmatisation and the resulting discrimination may lead to mental-health problems – not homosexuality in itself. The mental-health situation is much better in countries that protect the rights of LGBTI people – South Africa, where gay marriage is legal, is an example. (shmy)

Link
Proposed declassification of disease categories related to sexual orientation in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11):
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/9/14-135541.pdf

 

 

Is Homosexuality a Choice?

• By Marcia Malory on October 19, 2012

Ask this question, and you will probably receive one of two responses:

Yes. People choose to be gay. They are making an immoral choice, which government should discourage.

Or

No. Sexual preference is biologically determined. Government should protect gay people from discrimination because homosexuality is an unalterable aspect of their identity.

These two answers have something in common: With both of them, the science conveniently supports the moral decision.

“Being gay is bad. How wonderful it is that nobody has to be gay!”

“Homosexual behavior should be allowed to take place. Isn’t it fantastic that, by an amazing coincidence, there is no way to stop it?”

What if neither answer is right?

Perhaps sexual preference can be changed – and people have the right to engage in gay sex and have homosexual relationships if they choose to do so. (The fourth option, that gay people have no choice but to be gay, but should be punished for it anyway, is morally unthinkable.)

What does science tell us about sexual preference?

Genes

We know, from many twin and adoption studies, that sexual preference has a genetic component.

A gay man is more likely than a straight man to have a (biological) gay brother; lesbians are more likely than straight women to have gay sisters.

In 1993, a study published in the journal Science showed that families with two homosexual brothers were very likely to have certain genetic markers on a region of the X chromosome known as Xq28. This led to media headlines about the possibility of the existence of a “gay gene” and discussions about the ethics of aborting a “gay” fetus.

There have also been headlines about an “alcoholism gene”, which makes people become alcoholics, and a “warrior gene”, which makes people unusually aggressive.

Genes can’t control behavior completely, though. Genes regulate the production of amino acids, which combine to form proteins. The existence or absence of a protein can have an effect on things like alcohol tolerance or mood.

Affecting something is not the same as having complete control over it.

Environment, like genetics, plays an important role in how our behavior develops.

Alcoholism runs in families not only because there is a genetic component to alcoholism, but also because children learn how to cope with stress by watching how their parents and their older siblings behave in stressful situations.

If you come from a culture where alcohol consumption is forbidden, it will be difficult for you to become an alcoholic, no matter how your body metabolizes alcohol.

There are factors besides a “warrior gene” that contribute to aggression. Children learn to behave aggressively when they witness aggression being rewarded.

If you grew up in a family or as part of a culture where aggression was not well accepted, you would be less likely to be aggressive. You would learn, from an early age, how to control your aggressive tendencies.

Your environment affects your sexual and romantic relationships.

Throughout history, marriages have been influenced by family relations and by economic needs.

People adhere to cultural constraints of monogamy despite being attracted to people other than their spouses.

Your culture affects your views on homosexuality.

In some societies, homosexuality is accepted, in others, it is frowned upon but tolerated, in yet others, it is a serious criminal offense, possibly punishable by death.

Male homosexual behavior was expected in ancient Athens. Today, ritual male homosexuality plays an important role in some cultures in New Guinea.

Your upbringing can influence what you find desirable and what you find repulsive. Most Americans would be probably be nauseated if they learned that, when they thought they had been eating beef, they were, in fact, eating dog, even though there is nothing inherently unhealthy about dog meat.

What you have learned about homosexuality as you were growing up will affect whether you consider engaging in homosexual acts to be desirable or disgusting.

Some people might argue that if you are “genetically gay” but the thought of homosexuality nauseates you, then you just haven’t accepted the fact that you really are gay. That argument is based on the assumption that sexual preference is purely biological; therefore, it has no place in a discussion about the possible causes of homosexuality.

The Brain

The structure of the brain might influence sexual preference.

In 1991, a study published in the journal Science seemed to show that the hypothalamus, which controls the release of sex hormones from the pituitary gland, in gay men differs from the hypothalamus in straight men. The third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was found to be more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men

This study was criticized because it used brain tissue obtained at autopsies, and all of the homosexual subjects in the study were believed to have died of AIDS.

A later study, which was performed in 2001, showed that HIV status has no significant effect on the INAH3. This study, which also used brain tissue from autopsies, did not reveal any significant difference between the size of the INAH3 in gay men and straight men. It did, however, show that in gay men, neurons in the INAH3 are packed more closely together than in straight men.

PET and MRI studies performed in 2008 have shown that the two halves of the brain are more symmetrical in homosexual men and heterosexual women than in heterosexual men and homosexual women. These studies have also revealed that connections in the amygdalas of gay men resemble those of straight women; in gay women, connections in the amygdala resemble those of straight men. The amygdala has many receptors for sex hormones and is associated with the processing of emotions.

Some studies have shown that the corpus callosum – the main connection between the two halves of the brain- has a different structure in gay men than in straight men. However, other studies have found no difference.

Gay women and gay men are more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than straight women and straight men, according to a number of different studies. Some researchers have suggested that this difference in handedness – preference for one hand over the other can be observed in fetuses - is related to differences in the corpus callosum.

A 1992 study showed that the anterior commissure, a smaller connection between the brain’s two hemispheres, is larger in homosexual men than in straight men. However, according to a study that was performed ten years later, the size of the anterior commissure is not affected by sexual orientation.

We know from studying rats that exposure to sex hormones in the womb during a critical period in brain development affects future sexual orientation. By manipulating hormone levels during this time, scientists can make rats engage in homosexual behavior later on.

So your brain was influencing your sexual preference even before you were born.

This can explain why many gay people feel that they have always been gay.

Brain development does not stop at birth, though.

A large amount of brain development takes place during childhood, when you are learning many new things – including how your family and the adults around you believe you should feel about things and what they believe is acceptable behavior.

The education you receive as a child strongly affects how your brain will develop as you grow. For example, children who are given musical training experience changes to areas of the brain associated with hearing and motor control.

With the right experiences, your brain can change even after you have reached adulthood.

Both London taxi drivers and professional piano tuners show increases in gray matter in areas of the brain associated with the skills needed for their professions. The size of the increase in gray matter correlates with the numbers of years of experience.

In one experiment, elderly subjects showed increases in gray matter in certain parts of their brains after they were taught to juggle.

With proper rehabilitation, people who have suffered brain damage from strokes can develop new neural connections and regain some of their old skills.

It’s important to point out that the regions of the brain that have been shown to change because of training and experience are not the parts of the brain that have been associated with sexual preference.

However, women do experience changes to the structure of the hypothalamus – which is thought to be associated with sexual orientation - throughout the menstrual cycle.

So far, attempts to “cure” homosexuality by operating on the brain – homosexuals were once given lobotomies - have never worked.

(Attempts to eliminate homosexuality via hormone therapy haven’t been effective either. While changes in hormone levels in the womb during a very specific time can have an effect on future sexual preference, hormone levels have no effect on sexual preference afterwards. Gay men and straight men have the same levels of sex hormones; sex hormone levels are the same in gay women and straight women.)

Today, however, we know much more about the brain than we did when homosexuality was considered a disease that required treatment, and the amount of knowledge that we have about the brain is increasing.

Perhaps one day we will be able to adjust sexual preference via surgery - focusing on the particular regions of the brain that are associated with sexual preference – or via neural implants or training.

If Sexual Preference Can Be Changed

Even if gay people can never stop being attracted to members of the same sex, they can learn not to act on their desires.

People already learn to stop smoking, to give up certain foods, and not cheat on their husbands or wives.

If we define being gay as engaging in homosexual behavior (the concept of “gay” as an identity is a Western cultural concept – people who have sex with both men and women may call themselves gay, straight or bisexual, depending on the rules of their culture or subculture), then people stop being gay as soon as they stop engaging in this behavior.

Should they stop?

If they could, should they change their brains (or have their brains changed) in order to make themselves straight?

I believe that people have the right to engage in any behavior that they choose, as long as their actions do not harm others, and I believe that gay sex and gay relationships do not cause harm to anyone. Therefore, people who are gay by choice have the right to remain that way

(Of course, there are abusive and unhealthy gay relationships that should not be tolerated, just as there are unhealthy heterosexual relationships that should not be tolerated.)

If sexual preference can be altered, then people who support gay rights can’t rely on the argument that gay people should be protected from discrimination because gay people have no choice but to be gay – an argument that seems like an apology for homosexuality, as if homosexuality is a disease for which there is no cure.

There is an element of homophobia in that argument– the implication that gay people would become straight, if only they could. Supporting gay marriage becomes equivalent to supporting the construction of wheelchair ramps. The “gays can’t help being that way” approach is reminiscent of the old view of homosexuality as a psychiatric illness.

In a blog post for Slate, J. Bryan Lowder comments on Cynthia Nixon’s claim that her lesbianism is a choice. Lowder agrees with Nixon that blaming biology “cedes a great deal of control to bigoted people.”

You don’t have to defend a controversial action by arguing that you have no control over your behavior. In fact, when we you do so, you reinforce the belief that your behavior is undesirable.

Nobody has to prove that biology forces them to vote for a particular political party, practice a certain religion or follow a particular diet.

Just as gay people who are happy as they are should not be forced to change their sexual orientation, gay people who want to be straight should have the right to change if they can – and the correct word is “change” – not “cure”.

In his blog post, Lowder states, “Many critics will argue that appealing to biology is the only way to protect against the attacks of the religious right.”

It might make these critics unhappy to hear this, but that’s not how science works.

Science doesn’t change in order to support political opinions.

Scientific beliefs change as we gain new information, and sometimes science tells us things that we would rather not hear.

Get used to it.

References:

Bailey, J.M. & Pillard, R.C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48(12): 1089–1096.

Balthazart, J. (2012). Brain development and sexual orientation. Colloquium Series on the Developing Brain, Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

Baroncini, M. et al. (2010). Sex steroid hormones-related structural plasticity in the human hypothalamus, NeuroImage, 50(2): 428-43.

Boyke, J., Driemeyer, J., Gaser, C., Büchel, C. & May, A. (2008). Training induced brain structure changes in the elderly. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(28): 7031-7035.

Burri, A., Cherkas, L., Spector, T. & Rahman, Q. (2011). Genetic and environmental influences on female sexual orientation, childhood gender typicality and adult gender identity, PLOS ONE 6(7): e21982.

Hamer, D.H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V.L., Hu, N. & Pattatucci, A.M. (1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261(5119): 321-327.

Hyde, K.L. et al. (2009). The effects of musical training on structural brain development: a longitudinal study. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1169: 182-186.

Johannson, B.B. (2011). Current trends in stroke rehabilitation: A review with focus on brain plasticity. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 123(3): 147-159.

LeVay, S. (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 253(5023): 1034-1037.

Maguire, E.A. et al. (2000). Navigational-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 97(8): 4398–4403.

Prinz, J. (2012). Beyond human nature: how culture and experience shape our lives New York: Penguin Group USA.

Teki, S. et al. (2012). Navigating the auditory scene: an expert role for the hippocampus. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(35): 12251-12257.

Whitam, F.L., Diamond, M. & Martin J. (1993). Homosexual orientation in twins: A report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22(3): 187-206.

Photo credits: Vancouver Gay Pride Parade 2008 by ecodallaluna on Wikimedia Commons; DNA by ynse on Wikimedia Commons; Brain fMRI by NASA.

 

 

etc., etc., etc........

 

 

[homersapien 11,415]

21 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I know you are, but what am I?

(Did I do that right?)

No, you need to provide an example. 

Say an incidence in which totally I misrepresented one of your prior posts. 

For example, you implied the only reason I thought yelling F*** Biden was classless because it was directed to Biden instead of say, Trump.  I never said nor implied that.  My position is that yelling F*** (anyone) at a football game is classless.

And this was in an unrelated post.

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by homersapien