Hey Democrats...

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

No, you need to provide an example.

Why?  You don't when you make that claim.

[homersapien 11,453]

5 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Why?  You don't when you make that claim.

"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.)

I'd quote that example but I can't find it now.  I saw it when Titan had me suspended and I couldn't respond.  But like I said, it was in a totally unrelated thread.

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

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........

 

 

I never claimed that homosexuality was a choice; I said the opposite, in fact.  Being a pedophile isn't a choice either, but we don't consider that normal just because it's involuntary.  And it's more than just not being o.k. with the behavior due to the fact that it harms children, it's considered abnormal.  At least I think it still is, although I do vaguely remember some sort of outcry against a change in the DSM5 a few years back.

And as far as that research from the 50s, first of all, we're talking about 60 people total.  That's not much of a study sample.  Secondly, it was conducted in the 1950s before John Exner standardized the Rorschach Test (that didn't happen until around the mid-60s, if I recall), so it was before that test was reliable and the MAPS and the TAT tests' reliability is questioned to this day.  Third, even if we accept the results, it only reports that gay people are generally healthy, not whether that one aspect of their expression is normal.

Again, let's take 30 pedophiles and 30 straight males and test them the same way.  I'll bet we get similar results.  Sexuality is an easy aspect of the personality to compartmentalize, at least for the short term.  

Finally, the actual facts disagree.  The rate of suicide, depression, substance abuse, and domestic violence is notably higher among homosexuals.  Those are facts regardless of what 60 Rorschach ink blot tests said in the 1950s.

And this is the typical quality of research that is cited to "prove" the normalcy of homosexuality, which is why I am convinced that it is a social shift rather than a scientific one.

So you originally cited history, science, and common sense.  I don't see any arguments from history or common sense in your post, and the science offered is highly suspect as I predicted it likely would be.  Other than that we just have an argument by authority by invoking the WHO.

What's the common sense/historical evidence?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"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.

(I'd quote that example but I can't find it now.  I saw it when Titan had me suspended and I couldn't respond.  But like I said, it was in a totally unrelated thread.)

 

O.k., but you didn't make that claim in that post.

[Leftfield 2,664]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I never claimed that homosexuality was a choice; I said the opposite, in fact.  Being a pedophile isn't a choice either, but we don't consider that normal just because it's involuntary.  And it's more than just not being o.k. with the behavior due to the fact that it harms children, it's considered abnormal.  At least I think it still is, although I do vaguely remember some sort of outcry against a change in the DSM5 a few years back.

And as far as that research from the 50s, first of all, we're talking about 60 people total.  That's not much of a study sample.  Secondly, it was conducted in the 1950s before John Exner standardized the Rorschach Test (that didn't happen until around the mid-60s, if I recall), so it was before that test was reliable and the MAPS and the TAT tests' reliability is questioned to this day.  Third, even if we accept the results, it only reports that gay people are generally healthy, not whether that one aspect of their expression is normal.

Again, let's take 30 pedophiles and 30 straight males and test them the same way.  I'll bet we get similar results.  Sexuality is an easy aspect of the personality to compartmentalize, at least for the short term.  

Finally, the actual facts disagree.  The rate of suicide, depression, substance abuse, and domestic violence is notably higher among homosexuals.  Those are facts regardless of what 60 Rorschach ink blot tests said in the 1950s.

I appreciate that you feel homosexuality is not a choice. However, I wonder if you are conscious of the fact that just about everything you've compared homosexuality to, including psychopaths and pedophiles, is extremely negative. You are vilifying a behavior that, outside of offending the sensibilities we as a society have imposed over time, has no effect on anyone outside of a consenting relationship. Pedophilia, while involuntary, by definition is an attack and harms another person. Usually when a psychopath is diagnosed it's because they've harmed someone or themselves, or just can't function in society.  Why are you comparing these people to such intensely negative things?

How about this: There aren't many people I know that would choose to eat lima beans, but hey, for those that would? Have at it. It may not be normal, but it's natural and doesn't affect me in the least.

I also wonder if you've considered why the rates of suicide, depression, substance abuse, and domestic violence might be higher among homosexuals. Do you think the negative stigmas constantly being pushed on them by a society that compares them to pedophiles and psychopaths might have a part to play? My wife and I are good friends with a lesbian couple. Their daughter and one of our daughters have been best friends for years. One of that couple was raised by a mother that was stunningly abusive, both physically and mentally, particularly after she came out. She was also bullied quite a bit in school, because she came out her sophomore year. It became bad enough that she dropped out and got her GED. Our friend is still in therapy (mental) years later because of what she went through. Fortunately, she is a great mother to her daughter and she has broken the cycle of abuse, but my point is her feeling of self-worth is negligible because of the abuse she went through. When she was younger she turned to drugs, fortunately just for a short time, was a cutter, and came very close to suicide. Obviously not every gay person goes through that exact scenario, but I think you may be underestimating the effect that constant negative pressure can have on a person's mental state.

 

[AU9377 5,043]

8 hours 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.

 

It is a complex issue.  Addressing the health concerns, I know that the risks are greater for certain diseases etc, but the reasoning is not that the person is homosexual. For example, HIV is much easier spread by males than females.  Therefore it is understandable that two men having sexual intercourse increases the risk of transmitting HIV moreso than any other group.

As for promiscuous behavior, men in general are more likely to seek out sexual encounters than women.  I think we can all agree that to be part of our nature.  When a gay man is not in some sort of committed relationship, would it not make sense that the number of sexual encounters would be higher?

As for other health trends, I would argue that the same things you mention as being particular to the gay community are also found in higher degrees in one gender or the other and that impacts the percentages in a profound way that those stats do not take into account.

Regardless, it doesn't change anything.  Most every family in America has a gay family member.  If someone doesn't, just think about that aunt or uncle that never married and never really dated much.  Those people have been treated horribly for way too long.  They aren't asking for special treatment.  They just want to be able to live without being judged for something that they had nothing to do with.  I don't believe that God makes mistakes, therefore I am comfortable with respecting everyone for who they are.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

 Why are you comparing these people to such intensely negative things?

Because it's obvious to everyone that we don't consider those things normal even though they fit the same criteria that are being used to argue that homosexuality is normal, and they are very similar in one or two respects (for psychopathy it would be the instance of the trait in the general population).  With respect to pedophilia...again—I even clarified—it's not just that pedophilia harms children, we actually consider it abnormal apart from that.

No offense, but I find the predictable, "You just said gays are like pedophiles" argument fairly disingenuous.  It's obvious that the two have commonalities as they both represent deviations from the—well, norm—of sexual attraction.  It's also obvious that they have one big difference.  Yes, that big difference has big moral implications, but I would think it would be obvious that I am not arguing from morality.  Feigning as though someone is unable to recognize the commonalities and only focusing on the difference when it's obvious that I am not arguing from a moral standpoint or trying to equate the two things morally just doesn't seem like we're being above-board.

And the stigma argument misses a couple of things.

One, depression—at least chronic depression—is a strange thing.  We know that it is largely genetic.  We also know that there is an inverse relationship between living in an affluent country and escaping depression. In other words, the better your standard of living, the more likely you are to be depressed.  There is certainly research that indicates that gay people who are rejected by their families suffer higher rates of depression, and that's not surprising.  But there is also research that indicates that gay people who feel rejected in some way and to some degree by the gay community (presumably not being "gay enough," somehow) also have higher rates of depression.  It's hard to figure out what's causing the depression, is the point.

Secondly, I don't know about depression because I don't know that anyone collected that data from Nazi Germany, but the suicide rate is even higher among gay men than it was for Jews being persecuted in Nazi Germany.  I saw a recent study that said almost one third of gay teens attempt suicide.  There's no way that it is more traumatic to be gay in 2021 than it was to be Jewish in Nazi Germany.  Or being black in America in 1940, for example.

Sure it affects the numbers.  But it doesn't seem to be anywhere near dispositive of them.

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

11 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Because it's obvious to everyone that we don't consider those things normal even though they fit the same criteria that are being used to argue that homosexuality is normal, and they are very similar in one or two respects (for psychopathy it would be the instance of the trait in the general population).  With respect to pedophilia...again—I even clarified—it's not just that pedophilia harms children, we actually consider it abnormal apart from that.

No offense, but I find the predictable, "You just said gays are like pedophiles" argument fairly disingenuous.  It's obvious that the two have commonalities as they both represent deviations from the—well, norm—of sexual attraction.  It's also obvious that they have one big difference.  Yes, that big difference has big moral implications, but I would think it would be obvious that I am not arguing from morality.  Feigning as though someone is unable to recognize the commonalities and only focusing on the difference when it's obvious that I am not arguing from a moral standpoint or trying to equate the two things morally just doesn't seem like we're being above-board.

And the stigma argument misses a couple of things.

One, depression—at least chronic depression—is a strange thing.  We know that it is largely genetic.  We also know that there is an inverse relationship between living in an affluent country and escaping depression. In other words, the better your standard of living, the more likely you are to be depressed.  There is certainly research that indicates that gay people who are rejected by their families suffer higher rates of depression, and that's not surprising.  But there is also research that indicates that gay people who feel rejected in some way and to some degree by the gay community (presumably not being "gay enough," somehow) also have higher rates of depression.  It's hard to figure out what's causing the depression, is the point.

Secondly, I don't know about depression because I don't know that anyone collected that data from Nazi Germany, but the suicide rate is even higher among gay men than it was for Jews being persecuted in Nazi Germany.  I saw a recent study that said almost one third of gay teens attempt suicide.  There's no way that it is more traumatic to be gay in 2021 than it was to be Jewish in Nazi Germany.  Or being black in America in 1940, for example.

Sure it affects the numbers.  But it doesn't seem to be anywhere near dispositive of them.

 

WTF does Jews in Nazi Germany have to do with the suicide rate of gay teens?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

16 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

It is a complex issue.  Addressing the health concerns, I know that the risks are greater for certain diseases etc, but the reasoning is not that the person is homosexual. For example, HIV is much easier spread by males than females.  Therefore it is understandable that two men having sexual intercourse increases the risk of transmitting HIV moreso than any other group.

As for promiscuous behavior, men in general are more likely to seek out sexual encounters than women.  I think we can all agree that to be part of our nature.  When a gay man is not in some sort of committed relationship, would it not make sense that the number of sexual encounters would be higher?

As for other health trends, I would argue that the same things you mention as being particular to the gay community are also found in higher degrees in one gender or the other and that impacts the percentages in a profound way that those stats do not take into account.

Regardless, it doesn't change anything.  Most every family in America has a gay family member.  If someone doesn't, just think about that aunt or uncle that never married and never really dated much.  Those people have been treated horribly for way too long.  They aren't asking for special treatment.  They just want to be able to live without being judged for something that they had nothing to do with.  I don't believe that God makes mistakes, therefore I am comfortable with respecting everyone for who they are.

 

I don't want to fight over details, but there are a couple of things there that seem comment-worthy.

First of all, demanding to be treated as a protected class is—by definition—asking for special treatment.  That's what the whole Christian baker episode was about.  

Secondly, I think there has to be a limit to what government should be enlisted to facilitate.  I think making sure that everyone is treated equally under the law is a legitimate function of government—and I have never opposed gay marriage on that basis.  We define marriage as a contract in the US and as such I don't see the basis to allow some adults to enter into that contract and others not to.  (Of course, the same reasoning applies to 3 women and 2 men who all want to marry each other, or a grown daughter wanting to marry her father, but we'll deal with those things when we get around to them, which probably won't be too far in the future.)

But I don't think it's the government's job to keep gay people (or any other people) from being judged.  People are free to have their opinions.  

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

WTF does Jews in Nazi Germany have to do with the suicide rate of gay teens?

I think if you read the exchanges it's pretty obvious.  if it's not obvious i would worry a little if I were you.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

27 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I think if you read the exchanges it's pretty obvious.  if it's not obvious i would worry a little if I were you.

Well that is the first I see mention of Jews in Nazi Germany, unless I missed it. Comparing what mental pain a gay person in 2021 to Jews being persecuted in Nazi Germany is irrelevant for the discussion. Even if the rate is substantially higher, it doesn't matter. 

Maybe I am missing something that was in the other thread that has a similar topic..................

[homersapien 11,453]

5 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I never claimed that homosexuality was a choice; I said the opposite, in fact.  Being a pedophile isn't a choice either, but we don't consider that normal just because it's involuntary.  And it's more than just not being o.k. with the behavior due to the fact that it harms children, it's considered abnormal.  At least I think it still is, although I do vaguely remember some sort of outcry against a change in the DSM5 a few years back.

And as far as that research from the 50s, first of all, we're talking about 60 people total.  That's not much of a study sample.  Secondly, it was conducted in the 1950s before John Exner standardized the Rorschach Test (that didn't happen until around the mid-60s, if I recall), so it was before that test was reliable and the MAPS and the TAT tests' reliability is questioned to this day.  Third, even if we accept the results, it only reports that gay people are generally healthy, not whether that one aspect of their expression is normal.

Again, let's take 30 pedophiles and 30 straight males and test them the same way.  I'll bet we get similar results.  Sexuality is an easy aspect of the personality to compartmentalize, at least for the short term.  

Finally, the actual facts disagree.  The rate of suicide, depression, substance abuse, and domestic violence is notably higher among homosexuals.  Those are facts regardless of what 60 Rorschach ink blot tests said in the 1950s.

And this is the typical quality of research that is cited to "prove" the normalcy of homosexuality, which is why I am convinced that it is a social shift rather than a scientific one.

So you originally cited history, science, and common sense.  I don't see any arguments from history or common sense in your post, and the science offered is highly suspect as I predicted it likely would be.  Other than that we just have an argument by authority by invoking the WHO.

What's the common sense/historical evidence?

I am not going to engage in a semantical argument about the word "normal".

Homosexuality occurs naturally.  As you say, it's not a choice.

The historical evidence lies in the fact that it has occurred naturally throughout recorded history and throughout various human cultures all over the globe.  In other words, it's not a modern "trend".

Not sure what point you are trying to make with all the other verbage in that post. If there is one perhaps you could state it in one simple sentence?

Edited October 19, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,453]

8 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

O.k., but you didn't make that claim in that post.

Didn't say what you implied I said either.

You have consistently miss-quoted or miss-interpreted several of my posts.  Homer thinks..... or Homer says.....

Since you never ask for clarification first, I can only assume you do it disingenuously for the purpose of gaining advantage in the "debate".

Beyond the one I just described, I am not going to go back and try to find every example.  But you can be sure I will point it out in the future (assuming I keep engaging/responding to you).

Edited October 20, 2021 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not going to engage in a semantical argument about the word "normal".

Homosexuality occurs naturally.  As you say, it's not a choice.

The historical evidence lies in the fact that it has occurred naturally throughout recorded history and throughout various human cultures all over the globe.  In other words, it's not a modern "trend".

Not sure what point you are trying to make with all the other verbage in that post. If there is one perhaps you could state it in one simple sentence?

I was addressing each of the points of "proof" that you offered.

[Leftfield 2,664]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Because it's obvious to everyone that we don't consider those things normal even though they fit the same criteria that are being used to argue that homosexuality is normal, and they are very similar in one or two respects (for psychopathy it would be the instance of the trait in the general population).  With respect to pedophilia...again—I even clarified—it's not just that pedophilia harms children, we actually consider it abnormal apart from that.

No offense, but I find the predictable, "You just said gays are like pedophiles" argument fairly disingenuous.  It's obvious that the two have commonalities as they both represent deviations from the—well, norm—of sexual attraction.  It's also obvious that they have one big difference.  Yes, that big difference has big moral implications, but I would think it would be obvious that I am not arguing from morality.  Feigning as though someone is unable to recognize the commonalities and only focusing on the difference when it's obvious that I am not arguing from a moral standpoint or trying to equate the two things morally just doesn't seem like we're being above-board.

It's estimated that less than 1% of the population has a genius level IQ. Synesthesia occurs in 2-4% of the population. 10-12% are left-handed. None of these are "normal", but they have no negative connotations. Consciously or not, you used only negative abnormalities as examples, and psychopathy is not generally a sexual abnormality.

You can find it as predictable as you like, but would you have used those examples if you were talking about someone who could only be sexually aroused by women with green eyes, or curly hair? You may not be arguing this from a moral standpoint, but your choice of examples seems to betray your feelings about the issue, and that ingrained bias goes back to the point about the constant negative pressure applied to gay people by much of society.

 

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Secondly, I don't know about depression because I don't know that anyone collected that data from Nazi Germany, but the suicide rate is even higher among gay men than it was for Jews being persecuted in Nazi Germany.  I saw a recent study that said almost one third of gay teens attempt suicide.  There's no way that it is more traumatic to be gay in 2021 than it was to be Jewish in Nazi Germany.  Or being black in America in 1940, for example.

Sure it affects the numbers.  But it doesn't seem to be anywhere near dispositive of them.

I'll take your numbers at face value, and I'm certainly not saying the Jews had it "better," but I believe there are different psychologies at work in these situations. The Jews were facing an existential threat, which the mind finds ways to fight in order to survive. Many in the gay community feel cut off, isolated, and with little hope of ever feeling happiness or acceptance, most especially in teens, whose minds have not fully formed and are still learning coping skills. The Nazis were a tangible external tormentor. Isolation is quite a different enemy.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Leftfield

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

Just now, homersapien said:

(assuming I keep engaging/responding to you).

Please don't.  You don't really have anything useful to offer.  If this board had an "ignore" feature you'd be on ignore.

[homersapien 11,453]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Because it's obvious to everyone that we don't consider those things normal even though they fit the same criteria that are being used to argue that homosexuality is normal, and they are very similar in one or two respects (for psychopathy it would be the instance of the trait in the general population).  With respect to pedophilia...again—I even clarified—it's not just that pedophilia harms children, we actually consider it abnormal apart from that.

No offense, but I find the predictable, "You just said gays are like pedophiles" argument fairly disingenuous.  It's obvious that the two have commonalities as they both represent deviations from the—well, norm—of sexual attraction.  It's also obvious that they have one big difference.  Yes, that big difference has big moral implications, but I would think it would be obvious that I am not arguing from morality.  Feigning as though someone is unable to recognize the commonalities and only focusing on the difference when it's obvious that I am not arguing from a moral standpoint or trying to equate the two things morally just doesn't seem like we're being above-board.

And the stigma argument misses a couple of things.

One, depression—at least chronic depression—is a strange thing.  We know that it is largely genetic.  We also know that there is an inverse relationship between living in an affluent country and escaping depression. In other words, the better your standard of living, the more likely you are to be depressed.  There is certainly research that indicates that gay people who are rejected by their families suffer higher rates of depression, and that's not surprising.  But there is also research that indicates that gay people who feel rejected in some way and to some degree by the gay community (presumably not being "gay enough," somehow) also have higher rates of depression.  It's hard to figure out what's causing the depression, is the point.

Secondly, I don't know about depression because I don't know that anyone collected that data from Nazi Germany, but the suicide rate is even higher among gay men than it was for Jews being persecuted in Nazi Germany.  I saw a recent study that said almost one third of gay teens attempt suicide.  There's no way that it is more traumatic to be gay in 2021 than it was to be Jewish in Nazi Germany.  Or being black in America in 1940, for example.

Sure it affects the numbers.  But it doesn't seem to be anywhere near dispositive of them.

 

You're really leaning on the word "normal". Also, you are clearly associating homosexuality - not to mention the word normal itself - with totally negative outcomes. 

The word "normal" is hugely and inherently subjective.   So why don't you follow my suggestion and simply drop the word normal from the discussion altogether.  Let's use "natural" instead. 

So what is the point about homosexuality you want to make?  Are you trying to suggest it is a totally unfortunate state to find oneself in?

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

10 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I was addressing each of the points of "proof" that you offered.

What proof do you want? You don’t need scientific research to show that homosexuality, bisexuality is a normal and natural occurring in humans and other species. It may not be the “norm” but it still is normal. It’s been prevalent throughout history as seen in historical records. 
 

I have an uncle that is gay, although he never came out and admitted it. Also, my 13 year old daughter is struggling with her sexuality. We don’t give a damn if she likes boys or girls or both or thinks she should have been a boy….because If accepting her as she is keeps her from offing herself then that’s what we will do. 
 

Also, you’d be surprised with how many people are really bisexual….especially women. There is a saying at the club “Women are dressing to impress other women, not men.” 

[homersapien 11,453]

18 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I was addressing each of the points of "proof" that you offered.

And I was addressing the only question contained in your pleonasm.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And I was addressing the only question contained in your pleonasm.

At first I read that as neoplasm, ironically I think that definition could apply as well. 😂😂

[AU9377 5,043]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I don't want to fight over details, but there are a couple of things there that seem comment-worthy.

First of all, demanding to be treated as a protected class is—by definition—asking for special treatment.  That's what the whole Christian baker episode was about.  

Secondly, I think there has to be a limit to what government should be enlisted to facilitate.  I think making sure that everyone is treated equally under the law is a legitimate function of government—and I have never opposed gay marriage on that basis.  We define marriage as a contract in the US and as such I don't see the basis to allow some adults to enter into that contract and others not to.  (Of course, the same reasoning applies to 3 women and 2 men who all want to marry each other, or a grown daughter wanting to marry her father, but we'll deal with those things when we get around to them, which probably won't be too far in the future.)

But I don't think it's the government's job to keep gay people (or any other people) from being judged.  People are free to have their opinions.  

 

I never intended to infer that it was a function of government to keep anyone from being judged.  I personally do not believe that most people that consider themselves to be gay want special treatment or even to be considered a special class for the purpose of civil rights laws.  They simply want to be treated fairly and with respect.  That isn't too much for anyone to expect or ask for.

A marriage between two adults is not the same as incest or plural marriage.  I always believed that equal protection would require states to allow same sex marriage, but on this issue the court surprised most when they declared the right to marry to be a fundamental right.

The most comical part of the "Christian baker" ordeal is the fact that churches all across this country have gay men in leadership roles.  It is extremely common.  All they ask is that they don't talk about it out loud.  Growing up, we all knew that our youth minister was gay.  It was obvious, but he did a great job and  truly helped a lot of kids when they would struggle with something.  Everyone loved the guy.  

When he moved to New York to live with his partner 10 years later, people were shocked that  something like that would happen.  I suppose denial is a very powerful thing, because anyone with half a brain could see that the man was gay.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

48 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

What proof do you want?

I wasn't the one who made this about proof.

Please do read the thread if you want to comment.  It's tedious to have to address things like this that have already been addressed.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

The word "normal" is hugely and inherently subjective.   So why don't you follow my suggestion and simply drop the word normal from the discussion altogether.  Let's use "natural" instead. 

So what is the point about homosexuality you want to make?  Are you trying to suggest it is a totally unfortunate state to find oneself in?

 

Because the word "natural" is meaningless unless you think that some things are brought about supernaturally.  Otherwise any state of being or condition is "natural."

I'm not really making a point about homosexuality.  I'm making a point about the very weak arguments most of you are making to claim that it is normal.  Your being the weakest of all, since you promised to prove that is was based on history, common sense, and science, and the only one of those you even made an attempt at was science and it was some of the most weak-sauce "science" ever.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

It's estimated that less than 1% of the population has a genius level IQ. Synesthesia occurs in 2-4% of the population. 10-12% are left-handed. None of these are "normal", but they have no negative connotations. Conscious or not, you used only negative abnormalities as examples, and psychopathy is not generally a sexual abnormality.

You can find it as predictable as you like, but would you have used those examples if you were talking about someone who could only be sexually aroused by women with green eyes, or curly hair? You may not be arguing this from a moral standpoint, but your choice of examples seems to betray your feelings about the issue, and that ingrained bias goes back to the point about the constant negative pressure applied to gay people by much of society.

 

I'll take your numbers at face value, and I'm certainly not saying the Jews had it "better," but I believe there are different psychologies at work in these situations. The Jews were facing an existential threat, which the mind finds ways to fight in order to survive. Many in the gay community feel cut off, isolated, and with little hope of ever feeling happiness or acceptance, most especially in teens, whose minds have not fully formed and are still learning coping skills. The Nazis were a tangible external tormentor. Isolation is quite a different enemy.

Hmmm.  What if I had used the example of someone who could only be aroused by a dead body or a cucumber?  Those people exist.  Do you consider their sexual proclivities normal?  If not, why not?  They aren't hurting anyone either.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

7 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I wasn't the one who made this about proof.

Please do read the thread if you want to comment.  It's tedious to have to address things like this that have already been addressed.

You want to rewind that a little......

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

Homer then provides legitimate back-up for his claim.....

Then:

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

And this is the typical quality of research that is cited to "prove" the normalcy of homosexuality, which is why I am convinced that it is a social shift rather than a scientific one.

 

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I was addressing each of the points of "proof" that you offered.

You seem to be the only one wanting someone to prove something. 

Before you try to make snide comments, you might want to take some Ginkgo Bilboa or whatever herb helps with your memory.