Perverts at Play: Sublimation, Rape Culture, and the Gay Fray

[Tiassa]

From Galen to ... well, a gynecologist of Freud's association, at least, and I don't really think masculine societal interests have gotten over the loss. Leave it to some, molestation is a cure for anything. In the end, though, it is only a severe and severely stylized iteration of one's own self-interest just happening to completely innocently accidentally coincide exactly with what everybody needs and wouldn't you just know it the person who needs it most of all right now just happens to completely innocently accidentally coincide with who one most wishes to help.

(Edit note: Typo; strike negative contraction.)

 

[James R]

wellwisher:

Are you for real?

One consideration is the high rate of addiction and suicide in the alternate sexuality community. This shows that what many consciously assume is natural to their ego, due to cultural programming, is unnatural to their instincts.

Please confirm for us that you are claiming that homosexuality is "unnatural", and that it leads to addiction to drugs and to suicide.

Please explain to us how you have ascertained that homosexuality is the "problem", and not the attitudes of some in society (yourself as one possible example) towards people who are LGBT.

Humans have will and choice, but some choices are not natural for all herd. If conversion saves lives, doesn't that justify it?

Please explain to us why, exactly, you believe that "conversion" is possible, and why you believe it is helpful rather than damaging to the person being "converted".

Another consideration is medicine is big business and like any business they need to find ways to create new markets. People are dumb and seem to want to believe in sickness and the promises of cures. They seem to want others to think for them and take care of them like they are children. Such people who go to conversion therapy, may have previously allowed politicians and activists to think for them, so they became what they were not. Now they want someone new to think for them, to become something new, they also may not be.

I don't understand this paragraph. You jump from complaining about big-business medicine to the problems with politicians and "activists" (for something or other), to people becoming what they are not.

Would you care to explain your thought process? For example, how does big-business medicine use homosexuality to create new markets?

Do you not believe in sickness and promises of cures? Why not?

Are all people dumb, or just everybody apart from yourself?

Do you allow activists to think for you? Who are these activists you speak of, anyway?

Also part of this is fear. If conversion works, it can create a wild card from which inferences may appear which show that the party line was a fraud.

Please confirm for us that you believe that "conversion" "works".

Please explain why you think the idea that conversion doesn't work is just a fraudulent party line.

I look forward to your detailed responses to these questions.

If you cannot respond, I suggest you avoid addressing this kind of topic in future.

 

[Bells]

One consideration is the high rate of addiction and suicide in the alternate sexuality community.

The reality is that people are more likely to turn to suicide and substance abuse when rejected by their community and forced into conversion therapy. Those are the facts.

This shows that what many consciously assume is natural to their ego, due to cultural programming, is unnatural to their instincts

Well if we are talking about your over-inflated ego, then you might have a point.

The reality is that conversion therapy causes more harm than good.

Humans have will and choice, but some choices are not natural for all herd. If conversion saves lives, doesn't that justify it?

But conversion therapy does not save lives. On the contrary, conversion therapy endangers lives because people are more likely to attempt suicide because of the conversion therapy.

So how can you question if it is justified?

Another consideration is medicine is big business and like any business they need to find ways to create new markets.

Conversion therapy is not a part of "medicine". Any dumbarse, without qualification even, can clutch a bible and offer conversion therapy.

In short, conversion therapy is not recognised as a medical or psychological or psychiatric practice. Why? Because it is harmful.

People are dumb and seem to want to believe in sickness and the promises of cures.

I suppose this explains why you keep asking "if conversion therapy works"...

They seem to want others to think for them and take care of them like they are children.

Which begs the question... Why are you supporting conversion therapy that is more often than not, pushed by religious organisations?

Such people who go to conversion therapy, may have previously allowed politicians and activists to think for them, so they became what they were not. Now they want someone new to think for them, to become something new, they also may not be.

People are forced into conversion therapy because their communities and family members force them to and shame them into it because of their own bigotry. The tragic case of the Robertson family springs to mind. What they put their son through for years while he was a teenager is horrific. Their son eventually died of a drug over-dose.. Drugs he turned to after he felt rejected by his parents and church community and the pain and horror he was made to endure.

Then of course we have parents who have their teenage children kidnapped for being LGBT and sent to South America and forced into conversion therapy, where the children are tortured to turn them "straight".

 

[Bells]

Also part of this is fear. If conversion works, it can create a wild card from which inferences may appear which show that the party line was a fraud. It would like if you believe the world was flat and someone had an experiment to show it was round, but it will take time to collect data. One may need to undermine the data collection, less the truth be known. Those who make money off the status quo don't want another status quo, where they can't shear the sheep.

But conversion therapy does not work.

Just to name a few medical and scientific bodies on the subject:

American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry

"Clinicians should be aware that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be altered through therapy, and that attempts to do so may be harmful. There is no empirical evidence adult homosexuality can be prevented if gender nonconforming children are influenced to be more gender conforming. Indeed, there is no medically valid basis for attempting to prevent homosexuality, which is not an illness. On the contrary, such efforts may encourage family rejection and undermine self-esteem, connectedness and caring, important protective factors against suicidal ideation and attempts. Given that there is no evidence that efforts to alter sexual orientation are effective, beneficial or necessary, and the possibility that they carry the risk of significant harm, such interventions are contraindicated."
Practice Parameter on Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation, Gender Nonconformity, and Gender Discordance in Children and Adolescents.

American Academy of Pediatrics

"Confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Counseling may be helpful for young people who are uncertain about their sexual orientation or for those who are uncertain about how to express their sexuality and might profit from an attempt at clarification through a counseling or psychotherapeutic initiative. Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation."
Homosexuality and Adolescence, Pediatrics.

[...]

American College of Physicians

"The College opposes the use of “conversion,” “reorientation,” or “reparative” therapy for the treatment of LGBT persons."

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health Disparities: Executive Summary of a Policy Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

American Psychiatric Association

"Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or 'repair' homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."
Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies).

American Psychoanalytic Association

“As with any societal prejudice, bias against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism through the internalization of such prejudice.

Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’ “repair,” change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.”
Position Statement on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, or Gender Expression.

American Psychological Association

"THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others' sexual orientation…"
Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts.​

There are many more, but surely you get the drift that it does not work and is rejected by the health and scientific community for being a hack and a fraud.

Ergo, the fraud that exists is the conversion therapy itself.

 

[Magical Realist]

This shows that what many consciously assume is natural to their ego, due to cultural programming, is unnatural to their instincts

Not clubbing someone to death over a parking place is unnatural to instinct. Not fighting another male to the death over a woman is unnatural to instinct. Not hating someone who looks different from you is unnatural to instinct. Thank goodness for cultural programming. It's where we derive all our moral principles from.

 

[wellwisher]

wellwisher:

Are you for real?

Please confirm for us that you are claiming that homosexuality is "unnatural", and that it leads to addiction to drugs and to suicide.

Please explain to us how you have ascertained that homosexuality is the "problem", and not the attitudes of some in society (yourself as one possible example) towards people who are LGBT.

Please explain to us why, exactly, you believe that "conversion" is possible, and why you believe it is helpful rather than damaging to the person being "converted".

I don't understand this paragraph. You jump from complaining about big-business medicine to the problems with politicians and "activists" (for something or other), to people becoming what they are not.

Would you care to explain your thought process? For example, how does big-business medicine use homosexuality to create new markets?

Do you not believe in sickness and promises of cures? Why not?

Are all people dumb, or just everybody apart from yourself?

Do you allow activists to think for you? Who are these activists you speak of, anyway?


Please confirm for us that you believe that "conversion" "works".

Please explain why you think the idea that conversion doesn't work is just a fraudulent party line.

I look forward to your detailed responses to these questions.

If you cannot respond, I suggest you avoid addressing this kind of topic in future.

Homosexuality is more accepted than in any time in modern history. Not too long ago, a homosexual could not be open to his preference in public, without a huge backlash of negative drama. It is way different today. If you are young, you may buy the propaganda that this is the worse of times.

On the other hand, if one is white, male, straight, Republican and a Christian you are constantly accused of being the source of all the woes and problems of a wide number of victim groups. Even on this web site, you will get more bullied if you attempt to defend white, male, straight, Republican and Christian demographic, than you will of you defend homosexuality. If you defend white you are a racist, if you defend male you are a sexist, etc. But I defend homosexual, I am a good person.

Use some common sense. Who should have the higher rates of suicide, a person who is treated differently, by some because their sexual orientation, or a person who did nothing from the past but is bullied by law, quotas, social media, and discussion forums for being a hateful, racist, sexist, homophobic, bigot, whose faith is delusional, and whose politics is heartless. I would expect the second option should be committing more suicide, due to the wider range of angles coming from bullies, supported by PC. The opposite is true.

The difference, if one feels the attack is true, deep down, it hits one harder and hurts more. If one feels they are being falsely accused, you either ignore it or you attack the accuser in self defense. You won't attack yourself. If you are smart and someone calls you stupid you will not get depressed as soon. If you deep down feel stupid, and someone calls you stupid, this hurts more. My theory is there are natural homosexual and unnatural homosexuals, with both looking the same, but not the same, deep down inside.


As far as natural versus unnatural, needing surgery to alter sexuality is not natural, since nature does not have surgeons. A duck cannot go and get a sex change operation. I am not saying it is not possible to feel one way and be another. In nature, one is stuck with this; that is natural. It needs artificial to change; science and medicine. The new person is not a product of nature. This is straight forward and should not be sales pitched with a delusion.

There is a thing called natural selection by a man name Darwin. If an animal is at odds within themselves, in terms of form and function, this makes it harder to be selected naturally, since one's psyche and body is divided. If a bird decides it does not like flying, it will go extinct. All its predators will find that it can no longer fly away to escape, so it become food for the beasts. It will need artificial selection to survive, not natural selection.

In terms of homosexuality and Darwin's theory of natural selection, these orientations, for men and women, cannot reproduce in a natural way; sex and the transfer of genetic material. It will take science to overcome this bottleneck in natural selection; test tube babies. Such couples can adopt, but their genes are not passed forward. So even if the couple are natural, their genes stop there. If we only use natural selection, their genes cannot be passed forward naturally, without science. The only way is for culture require homosexuals act as heterosexual for at least part of time. This allows their DNA to pass forward. This may not alter the inner person, but it historically avoided extinction of the gay gene. The church was not the enemy of homosexuals, in the Darwin sense.

In modern times, since conversion is frowned upon, and homosexuality still can't forward genes in a natural way, the number of people in this demographic should be decreasing over time, if homosexuality is genetic based. If I have a species of birds, that I make sterile, to simulate he homosexual gene transmission bottleneck, that species will decline over time, and reach extinction. If the numbers of bird was to increase, this is not due to anything Darwin spoke of. It is not genetic based, but could begin in the brain; transmission of meme style DNA, via mind sex. Or it can be due to artificial selection.

I always thought it strange that in the old days, homosexuals had to marry and pretend to be heterosexual. This passed the homosexual gene forward. In more recent times, with the opening up of culture to this life style, there is less homosexual gene transfer to the future, yet the numbers are not declining as expected. It does not add up properly. If we were talking about star fish or mice it would be easier for the biologists to pitch in and verify what I am saying. But with PC, that would mean they will become a victim.

 

[Tiassa]

Self-Destruction Is a Sin

​

Homosexuality is more accepted than in any time in modern history. Not too long ago, a homosexual could not be open to his preference in public, without a huge backlash of negative drama. It is way different today. If you are young, you may buy the propaganda that this is the worse of times.

'Tis true, to hear some Christians tell it we are facing the End Times. Jesus is coming, and Christians are apparently supposed to be afraid and angry and looking for someone to blame.

On the other hand, if one is white, male, straight, Republican and a Christian you are constantly accused of being the source of all the woes and problems of a wide number of victim groups. Even on this web site, you will get more bullied if you attempt to defend white, male, straight, Republican and Christian demographic, than you will of you defend homosexuality. If you defend white you are a racist, if you defend male you are a sexist, etc. But I defend homosexual, I am a good person.

This childishly simplistic bit is pretty much the epitome of the supremacist's lament.

I want you to imagine something. One of your neighbors calls the police. Says you're being too loud. Whether you were or weren't kicking up too much ruckus is actually beside the point. While the cops are there, one of them notices a bookmark sticking out of a novel; it has a Bible verse printed on it. So the cop arrests you for suspected Christianity. The only defense available to you is that you weren't being Christian in public, that this is a matter of personal privacy. The courts convict you because, be it in your home or not, the cops had a right to be there and a duty to enforce the law. You point to your religious freedom, but the Supreme Court reaches back to English common law to demand orthodoxy; your conviction is upheld.

(1) When it gets to this point, let us know; then you'll be approximately where homosexuals found themselves circa Bowers.

(2) Historically speaking, it is more likely that your arrest for suspeced Christianity will be the result of Christianity. That is to say, it won't be atheistic logic at the top of that argument, nor Jewish nor Muslim nor Hindu, nor even Satanist. History quite clearly indicates that if it ever came to that, the transformation of your Christianity into a crime will happen for the sake of other Christians.​

Use some common sense. Who should have the higher rates of suicide, a person who is treated differently, by some because their sexual orientation, or a person who did nothing from the past but is bullied by law, quotas, social media, and discussion forums for being a hateful, racist, sexist, homophobic, bigot, whose faith is delusional, and whose politics is heartless. I would expect the second option should be committing more suicide, due to the wider range of angles coming from bullies, supported by PC. The opposite is true.

This is where calling your argument childish starts to insult children; most kids can figure out that if they intend to make something up in lieu of acknowledging reality, that something ought to at least resemble what it is intended to replace. Easy enough? Need it explained even further? "No, Mom, I didn't fart in church! It was Bob!" Maybe the kid is lying, but he knows damn well better than to say, "No, Mom, I didn't fart in church! This is bubble gum!"

The difference, if one feels the attack is true, deep down, it hits one harder and hurts more. If one feels they are being falsely accused, you either ignore it or you attack the accuser in self defense. You won't attack yourself. If you are smart and someone calls you stupid you will not get depressed as soon. If you deep down feel stupid, and someone calls you stupid, this hurts more. My theory is there are natural homosexual and unnatural homosexuals, with both looking the same, but not the same, deep down inside.

The difference is that here you are melting down and freaking out at the prospect of not getting to be the kind of bully you really, really like to be, because you can't take even that little bit of heat. So tell you what: When you have state governments lining up to forcibly re-educate you? When you have parents, preachers, teachers, and society in general trying to convince you of your terrible affliction? When they're trying to treat your alleged disability in order to make you take part in their own damn sex fantasy―Here, take some drugs, now go have sex the way we told you to, you cripple!―let us know.

You are bawling about the loss of bully privileges. By your own postulation, we ought not wonder why that prospect has reduced you to a dribbling, oozing shape of a stale, molded rhetorical jelly.

As far as natural versus unnatural, needing surgery to alter sexuality is not natural, since nature does not have surgeons. A duck cannot go and get a sex change operation. I am not saying it is not possible to feel one way and be another. In nature, one is stuck with this; that is natural. It needs artificial to change; science and medicine. The new person is not a product of nature. This is straight forward and should not be sales pitched with a delusion.

Neither can a duck administer radiotherapy.

There is a thing called natural selection by a man name Darwin. If an animal is at odds within themselves, in terms of form and function, this makes it harder to be selected naturally, since one's psyche and body is divided. If a bird decides it does not like flying, it will go extinct. All its predators will find that it can no longer fly away to escape, so it become food for the beasts. It will need artificial selection to survive, not natural selection.

In terms of homosexuality and Darwin's theory of natural selection, these orientations, for men and women, cannot reproduce in a natural way; sex and the transfer of genetic material. It will take science to overcome this bottleneck in natural selection; test tube babies. Such couples can adopt, but their genes are not passed forward. So even if the couple are natural, their genes stop there. If we only use natural selection, their genes cannot be passed forward naturally, without science. The only way is for culture require homosexuals act as heterosexual for at least part of time. This allows their DNA to pass forward. This may not alter the inner person, but it historically avoided extinction of the gay gene. The church was not the enemy of homosexuals, in the Darwin sense.

In modern times, since conversion is frowned upon, and homosexuality still can't forward genes in a natural way, the number of people in this demographic should be decreasing over time, if homosexuality is genetic based. If I have a species of birds, that I make sterile, to simulate he homosexual gene transmission bottleneck, that species will decline over time, and reach extinction. If the numbers of bird was to increase, this is not due to anything Darwin spoke of. It is not genetic based, but could begin in the brain; transmission of meme style DNA, via mind sex. Or it can be due to artificial selection.

The sad thing is that it's this many years later, and that is the best you can come up with.

One problem, of course, is that you're still fixated on some notion of a "gay gene":

I always thought it strange that in the old days, homosexuals had to marry and pretend to be heterosexual. This passed the homosexual gene forward.

What you actually ought to be looking for is a range of alleles expressing diverse outcomes that, when combined, result in homosexual outlook and behavior. Or, rather, we might be seeking a similar range of alleles effecting a constriction on sexual behavior; as we are already aware, sexuality is not described in so clearly-defined terms as heterosupremacists require. In that context, it could be that strict heterosexuality is actually the deviant behavior. The bottom line is that genetic considerations are far more complex than the mythopoeic balbutive of supremacist desperation.

In more recent times, with the opening up of culture to this life style, there is less homosexual gene transfer to the future, yet the numbers are not declining as expected. It does not add up properly. If we were talking about star fish or mice it would be easier for the biologists to pitch in and verify what I am saying. But with PC, that would mean they will become a victim.

No, seriously, you're not even a joke. That is to say, sad jokes are tragic, indeed, but not all tragedy is a joke. Comparatively, only a narrow range of tragedy generally qualifies as a sad joke.

Suffice to say, homosexuality persisted through darker, more closed times; if there is to be some reduction of homosexuals born because their gay parents are more often skipping the bit about passing, we would not yet be seeing it yet; the problem wouldn't be political correctness, but the idea of a scientist trying to simplify the data to mythopoeic pabulum for the sake of politics.

My advice is pretty straightforward: If you wish to stage a literary argument, familiarize yourself with the literature. If you intend to present an historical argument, learn the history. If you plan to outline a biological argument, actually plan it by learning the biology.

It would be one thing to dismiss your argument as a sick joke, but after all this time, with all this determination, you still haven't managed to learn a damn thing, and that isn't a laughing matter; rather, it is a human tragedy.

 

[Magical Realist]

Homosexuality is more accepted than in any time in modern history. Not too long ago, a homosexual could not be open to his preference in public, without a huge backlash of negative drama. It is way different today. If you are young, you may buy the propaganda that this is the worse of times.

Right. We call that progress. There was also a time when being a black free citizen was not accepted. Or a voting woman. Or a working disabled person. Or an interracial married couple. We live in enlightened times. If you wanna bring back the dark ages in the name of God, your prospects don't look good.

On the other hand, if one is white, male, straight, Republican and a Christian you are constantly accused of being the source of all the woes and problems of a wide number of victim groups. Even on this web site, you will get more bullied if you attempt to defend white, male, straight, Republican and Christian demographic, than you will of you defend homosexuality. If you defend white you are a racist, if you defend male you are a sexist, etc. But I defend homosexual, I am a good person.

White straight rich Christian males have been the ruling class for centuries now. Gay people otoh have been historically oppressed and persecuted just for seeking out love partners. That's the way culture dictates. Criticizing the ruling class is acceptable. Criticizing oppressed minorities isn't. But it doesn't seem to keep folks like you from still demonizing minorities, does it now?

Who should have the higher rates of suicide, a person who is treated differently, by some because their sexual orientation, or a person who did nothing from the past but is bullied by law, quotas, social media, and discussion forums for being a hateful, racist, sexist, homophobic, bigot, whose faith is delusional, and whose politics is heartless. I would expect the second option should be committing more suicide, due to the wider range of angles coming from bullies, supported by PC.

I know of no hate slurs like "fag" and "homo" used on white christian racists. I know of no hatecrimes committed against them. I still hear evangelical hatemongers like Pat Robertson blaming hurricanes and earthquakes and terrorists on gay people. I don't see anyone blaming white christian racists that way. I see news reports of teens in schools being bullied for being gay and transgender. I don't see anyone doing that to the white christian teens. Did you know that in most states it's still totally legal to fire or not hire someone just because they are gay or trans? That's not a problem for white christian racists. They are still free to spread their hatred and homophobia all they want on TV and from pulpits and radio stations. And that's the reason for the higher suicide rate for gay and trans. Because of homophobes like you still spreading bullshit about us as if we were freaks of nature who don't have the right to exist. Fortunately society isn't buying your gospel of self-righteous contempt anymore. So get used to being called out on your bigotry. Because that's the real problem here. And it always has been.

In terms of homosexuality and Darwin's theory of natural selection, these orientations, for men and women, cannot reproduce in a natural way; sex and the transfer of genetic material. It will take science to overcome this bottleneck in natural selection; test tube babies. Such couples can adopt, but their genes are not passed forward. So even if the couple are natural, their genes stop there. If we only use natural selection, their genes cannot be passed forward naturally, without science. The only way is for culture require homosexuals act as heterosexual for at least part of time. This allows their DNA to pass forward. This may not alter the inner person, but it historically avoided extinction of the gay gene. The church was not the enemy of homosexuals, in the Darwin sense.

Funny how gay people have been regularly conceived for thousands of years now prior to any intervention by medical science. Now why would THAT be if it is so unnatural? If as you claim natural selection doesn't favor it in any sense? Could if be the gene(s) that results in men being gay serves some advantage for women who have the same gene? Absolutely. Science has clearly shown that sisters and mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to be more fertile than average, effectively enhancing the survival and spread of the gay gene in the population. Totally natural advantage there. No science needed. Isn't that great?

http://www.medicaldaily.com/gay-gen...d-mothers-who-have-more-children-study-240813

 

[Bells]

There is a thing called natural selection by a man name Darwin. If an animal is at odds within themselves, in terms of form and function, this makes it harder to be selected naturally, since one's psyche and body is divided. If a bird decides it does not like flying, it will go extinct. All its predators will find that it can no longer fly away to escape, so it become food for the beasts. It will need artificial selection to survive, not natural selection.

Err you do realise that is not how natural selection works in evolution, yes?

In terms of homosexuality and Darwin's theory of natural selection, these orientations, for men and women, cannot reproduce in a natural way; sex and the transfer of genetic material. It will take science to overcome this bottleneck in natural selection; test tube babies.

In terms of homosexuality and natural selection, the homosexual "gene" as you are calling it, is passed on through heterosexual couples. In simpler terms, it isn't LGBT who are having LGBT children. It is heterosexuals who are having LGBT children.

And there is nothing wrong with that. It isn't an illness that requires genetic screening. Homosexuality is not a bottleneck in evolution. That you would suggest that it is a bottleneck in human evolution indicates that you do not exactly understand what the term "bottleneck" in evolution actually is.

So even if the couple are natural, their genes stop there. If we only use natural selection, their genes cannot be passed forward naturally, without science. The only way is for culture require homosexuals act as heterosexual for at least part of time. This allows their DNA to pass forward. This may not alter the inner person, but it historically avoided extinction of the gay gene. The church was not the enemy of homosexuals, in the Darwin sense.

What?

This makes no sense. Even if LGBT ignored their LGBT status or how they felt, it would not result in the extinction of LGBT. How you act does not affect the outcome of your offspring in that regard. In other words, if someone is gay and they act heterosexual and they have children, it will have no bearing on their child's sexuality. To put it in simple terms, if someone is white and they act black, does not mean that their children will be black if the other parent is also white.

In modern times, since conversion is frowned upon, and homosexuality still can't forward genes in a natural way, the number of people in this demographic should be decreasing over time, if homosexuality is genetic based.

Conversion therapy does not work. One's sexuality cannot be altered through praying away the gay or physical abuse, sexual abuse or torture.

Understand now?

If I have a species of birds, that I make sterile, to simulate he homosexual gene transmission bottleneck, that species will decline over time, and reach extinction. If the numbers of bird was to increase, this is not due to anything Darwin spoke of. It is not genetic based, but could begin in the brain; transmission of meme style DNA, via mind sex. Or it can be due to artificial selection.

This doesn't even make sense. Mind sex? Transmission of meme style DNA? Did you even take biology in high school?

Making birds sterile will not simulate a homosexual gene bottleneck.

I always thought it strange that in the old days, homosexuals had to marry and pretend to be heterosexual. This passed the homosexual gene forward.

Err no it did not.

In more recent times, with the opening up of culture to this life style, there is less homosexual gene transfer to the future, yet the numbers are not declining as expected. It does not add up properly.

Could that be because you are wrong in the first place? Could that possibly be because your understanding of biology and evolution is the equivalent of what a pea in a pod understand of it?

If we were talking about star fish or mice it would be easier for the biologists to pitch in and verify what I am saying. But with PC, that would mean they will become a victim.

There is no way to verify what you are saying because your ideas are, to put it bluntly, batshit stupid.

 

[James R]

wellwisher:

Homosexuality is more accepted than in any time in modern history.

In some places. In some other places, it is less accepted than it used to be. Homophobia and prejudice is still very much with us.

On the other hand, if one is white, male, straight, Republican and a Christian you are constantly accused of being the source of all the woes and problems of a wide number of victim groups. Even on this web site, you will get more bullied if you attempt to defend white, male, straight, Republican and Christian demographic, than you will of you defend homosexuality. If you defend white you are a racist, if you defend male you are a sexist, etc. But I defend homosexual, I am a good person.

Poor white, male, straight Christians, eh? They really have it tough, what with the constant persecution and lack of privilege and all.

Use some common sense. Who should have the higher rates of suicide, a person who is treated differently, by some because their sexual orientation, or a person who did nothing from the past but is bullied by law, quotas, social media, and discussion forums for being a hateful, racist, sexist, homophobic, bigot, whose faith is delusional, and whose politics is heartless. I would expect the second option should be committing more suicide, due to the wider range of angles coming from bullies, supported by PC. The opposite is true.

Looks like your hypothesis is deeply flawed then. You need to re-think. Or to think.

My theory is there are natural homosexual and unnatural homosexuals, with both looking the same, but not the same, deep down inside.

And how do you propose that one would one go about telling the difference, or show that such a difference exists?

As far as natural versus unnatural, needing surgery to alter sexuality is not natural, since nature does not have surgeons.

Are you claiming that natural equates with good and unnatural is bad?

Is using a computer "natural"? Is it a bad thing, then, that you're doing? Maybe you should remove your synthetic clothes and go live in a cave somewhere to be more "natural". Agree?

What does surgery have to do with homosexuality, by the way? I don't see the connection. Are you confusing homosexuality with transgender?

There is a thing called natural selection by a man name Darwin. If an animal is at odds within themselves, in terms of form and function, this makes it harder to be selected naturally, since one's psyche and body is divided. If a bird decides it does not like flying, it will go extinct. All its predators will find that it can no longer fly away to escape, so it become food for the beasts. It will need artificial selection to survive, not natural selection.

Birds have a long evolutionary history of being adapted to fly. Birds that did not like flying would have soon gone extinct, or else evolved into non-flying animals. If a trait is detrimental, it is soon bred out. But this has not happened with homosexuality. Therefore, it stands to reason that homosexuality is not detrimental.

In terms of homosexuality and Darwin's theory of natural selection, these orientations, for men and women, cannot reproduce in a natural way; sex and the transfer of genetic material.

That is quite wrong. There is some evidence of genetic hereditability of homosexuality. It could well be inherited from mothers. There is also some evidence to suggest that mothers who have homosexual children may, on average, have more children than average.

It will take science to overcome this bottleneck in natural selection; test tube babies.

The homosexual trait in human beings had already survived for about a million years before test tube babies became possible. That suggests to me that science isn't needed.

The only way is for culture require homosexuals act as heterosexual for at least part of time. This allows their DNA to pass forward.

You do know that homosexual people can have heterosexual siblings who share 50% of their genes, don't you?

In modern times, since conversion is frowned upon, and homosexuality still can't forward genes in a natural way, the number of people in this demographic should be decreasing over time, if homosexuality is genetic based.

Conversion isn't "frowned upon". Conversion is a fantasy.

Obviously you haven't done the bare minimum of reading on why a "gene" for homosexuality wouldn't necessarily become less prevalent over time. I suggest you do a brief google search on the matter. I just did, and in a minute or so I found at least 4 different suggested explanations.

Regarding the gay "gene" idea - that's only one possibility, by the way. It seems very likely that there is no single "gay gene". However, it is likely that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. Epigenetic effects may also have an important influence. And there may be a psychological or social component, too. In summary, it's not nearly as simple as you imagine it is.

I always thought it strange that in the old days, homosexuals had to marry and pretend to be heterosexual.

I get the impression that you think there was just one type of "old days", based on your own cultural background. I don't get the impression that you've really thought about any cultures different from your own. How far back are your "old days", anyway? Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality have not been the same at all times in all places.

In more recent times, with the opening up of culture to this life style, there is less homosexual gene transfer to the future, yet the numbers are not declining as expected. It does not add up properly.

Once again, the fact that your theory obviously doesn't work suggests to me that it is flawed. How about you?

 

[Tiassa]

Clean the Mind Off This Plastic Baby

"The child can't do anything right. Why can't he be like us?"​

• Hawaii↱ will consider a bill intended to banish conversion therapy in the Aloha State; we can only hope it doesn't take them two decades to win out, this time. "The proposed bill, which was introduced in the state's House and Senate, says that being gay isn't a disorder and makes it illegal to advertise, teach, or professionally counsel lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teens to change their sexual orientation."

• Meanwhile, in New York↱, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced a number of executive maneuvers intended to press against conversion therapy while the state legislature stalls the issue: "Cuomo announced planned regulations that would bar insurance coverage for the therapy for minors and prohibit mental health facilities under state Office of Mental Health jurisdiction from offering it to minors."

• In Kansas↱, conversion therapy survivor Samuel Brinton―now a Congressional advisor for nuclear issues―brought the "Fight for Fifty" campaign aiming to end conversion therapy in every state, to his alma mater, Kansas State University.

Some people believe, however, that conversion therapy is no longer an issue, Brinton said.

"Recognize that conversion therapy runs the gamut," Brinton said. "We have current data saying that 1 in 3 LGBT people will go through some form of conversion therapy."

With the amount of people experiencing conversion therapy, it is impossible to ignore the fact that it is happening in today's society, Brinton said.

"I get over and over and over again, 'The 1980s called, they want their issue back,' and I remind them that a young woman named Leelah Alcorn died of suicide this year at 12 years old because of conversion therapy," Brinton said. "This is happening now."​

‡​

Sometimes it is hard to figure what people think of reality. In political disputes we often hear how even seemingly privileged groups suffer injustice. If there is injustice against women, we are supposed to stop and think about all the injustice men suffer. If we worry about injustice against blacks, we are expected to stop and think about all the injustice white people suffer; they'll even make up fake injustice against cops when the problem is police killing too many black people for no good reason. Some days it seems as if the only time society is willing to consider injustice on a societal scale is if such a proposition distracts us from discussing injustice against empowerment minorities.

"I could only think how disabled I am"↗. Some might propose conversion therapy strikes too close to some occulted truth, but in doing so one omits basic reality. The sting of some stranger not liking queers is what it is, but object relations prevail; perpetual reminders that one is unsatisfactory to parent and family will have greater, more intimate effect.

And if one is immersed in such an environment, the question isn't whether a proposition strikes too close to an occulted truth, but, rather, its proximity to an object of truth; one learns to compare against an abstraction, becomes conditioned to failure. Train up a child in the way he should go; if we teach self-hatred, that is what the children will learn.

The disconnection from reality is apparent; the only truth conversion therapy strikes close to is an effigy of truth.

"I'm through with patience; I'll wait no longer. You never waited for me, anyway. This thing inside me, it's growing stronger. It's going to tear; tear until it sees the light of day."

―Floater↱​

____________________

Notes:

Campbell, Andy. "Hawaii Introduces Bill To Ban Gay Conversion Therapy". The Huffington Post. 28 January 2016. HuffingtonPost.com. 15 February 2016. http://huff.to/1U4ZRb8

Peltz, Jennifer. "N.Y. governor: It's time to ban conversion therapy". USA Today. 7 February 2016. USAToday.com. 15 February 2016. http://usat.ly/1KmzOu2

Starkey, Emily. "State by state, K-State alum plans to end conversion therapy". The Collegian. 16 February 2016. KStateCollegian.com. 15 February 2016. http://bit.ly/1TkIuCu

 

[Daecon]

It may be worth pointing out (again) that homosexuality isn't unique to homo sapiens. There have been many documented examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, from lions to penguins.

Homosexuality is natural.

 

[Bowser]

It may be worth pointing out (again) that homosexuality isn't unique to homo sapiens. There have been many documented examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, from lions to penguins.

Homosexuality is natural.

Yet we are the only animals with the capacity to reason.

 

[Tiassa]

​

Yet we are the only animals with the capacity to reason.

And if we would use that capacity more consistently and appropriately, the human endeavor would show even more impressive results.

Instead, we're apparently supposed to treat irrational propositions―

Robertson then lamented the purported “pressure” to be gay: “There’s so much lesbian stuff, I mean, lesbian this, lesbian the other, so much homosexual — the media is pushing this as hard as they can possibly push it. I don’t know what to do, maybe get her in a camp, a Christian camp in the summer where they are really on fire for the Lord and maybe she will straighten things out.”

(Tashman↱)​

―as if they are somehow rational and serious.

No, really: Send your daughter to a summer camp where she will be sexually harassed into sexual conformity.

You know, we humans can send people to the freakin' moon, but we can't seem to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women.

Our capacity to reason is awesome. We should probably appreciate it a little more.
____________________

Notes:

Tashman, Brian. "Pat Robertson: God Can 'Straighten Out' Your Gay Daughter At Summer Camp". Right Wing Watch. 27 April 2015. RightWingWatch.org. 27 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1dmXRJK

 

[birch]

Im seeing that there is a fear that homosexuality is contagious. Because for all of wellwisher's points, then there should be no problem. Their genes are not being passed on either just like many people for various reasons.

There arent even an equal number of males and females and thats just the start. They alleviate this disparity by their own choice.

Its the same logic of pro-life yet its not considered how all these children will have families.