A new study on homosexuality and genetics was released on August 29, 2019. The study was pulling resources from UK population in UK Biobank, and from US population through company "23 and me" covering a population of 480,000. The conclusions of the study find that there is no gay gene (a step away from previous studies claiming to have found the gay gene), but instead suggest that there are several genetic factors that can contribute to homosexuality. The study says to have identified 5 gene variants that can have an influence in homosexual behavior. However those variants explained less then 1% of any person's attraction to the same sex. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-08-gay-gene-major.html

Conversely according to the article above, "genetics account for between 8% and 25% of a person's same-sex attraction, taking into account the thousands of genetic traits ultimately involved in shaping a person's sexual desires." And "It's effectively impossible to predict an individual's sexual behavior from their genome."

Adding to the issue is the limitations of the study. Snopes.com reports on this study ending with some limitations within the study. Including questioning the survey questions in bio bank to identify who is homosexual and who isn't. Nonetheless researchers apparently agree that this study does not show that genitive determines sexuality. http://www.snopes.com/news/2019/08/30/genes-sexual-orientation-study/

The study was published on Sciencemag and can be found here. Though a subscription is needed to view the full text instead of the abstracts.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/869

Too late,
The lie of it all, has passed with flying rainbow flags.

And from the start, it is good to acknowledge the difference between persecution of homosexuals, and standing up to a political organisation, banded together with the commonality of homosexuality.

It is also timely, to object to lurid public displays of the act of homosexuality, in street parades which celebrate it.
It is again timely, to object to the creeping influence of the mal-practice and its overweighted political influence, seeping into our children's education as a part of the ciriculam.

And it's also timely for homosexuals themselves to acknowledge that the political wing of their cause, is a negative social influence on a stable and worthwhile society in which the other ninety eight percent of the sexually normal populace live.

In short, it's time to stop freeloading, and look for ways to change their own behaviour, rather than attempting to change the behaviour of the vastly normal other, by forcing acceptance of their abnormality.

Their never was and never will be a genetic excuse for homosexuals. Eventually as in past history, it will be universally accepted as a mental illness and treated with some compassion by the society which, at the moment, they seek to overturn.

Dan

A mental illness, Dan? That should go down well with the ranters and ravers:).

Being indoctrinated by the deranged does not equal mental illness !

Dear NNS,

Thank You for bringing this to our attention.

Medical X Press and Science Mag. publishers
have a reputation for publishing new studies
and new ideas that are outside the general
consensus. This is a good thing because it
may encourage these studies to be peer reviewed
and further tested.

The following link gives more:

http://scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behaviour

However, the study does point out that this is a complex
issue and that genetics does play a part in sexual
attraction. The consensus is that more studies need to be
done.

Sorry. I'll try again with the link:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behaviour

cont'd ...

I still don't have it right.
One last try:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-n-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behaviour/

I keep misspelling things - sorry.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/

Hi
Foxy,

" ..... genetics does play a part in sexual attraction."

Of course it does: it's called an urge towards 'reproduction', or at least the foreplay to it. Perhaps you're right, a half a million in a survey may not be enough, but as 'a complex issue', further research would need to isolate the factors which play a part in specifically heterosexual and homosexual attraction (or both), if they're are any.

Regards,

Joe

Well the homosexual community better hope there is no gay gene or genes.

Because if it were proven to exist, there'd be a whole bunch of regimes around the world doing enforced genetic testing and a whole bunch of buildings would be getting used for purposes they weren't designed for....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3198283/Horrific-moment-two-gay-men-thrown-tall-building-ISIS-stoned-baying-mob-including-children.html.

Equally there'd be a very high percentage of pregnant parents getting genetic testing at ten weeks and a marked increase in demand for abortion services.

If there were a 'gay' gene it'd be 'evolved' out of existence in a real big hurry. A few labs around the world would keep samples of the gene in a 'frig next to their sample of small pox, just for experimental purposes. (smile)

According to Science News (August 29th 2019) there apparently
is no evidence that a gay gene exists. Instead the claim is
that its a combination of many small genetic factors and
environmental, social, and cultural factors which may combine
to influence sexual behavior researchers say.

http://www.sciencenews.org/article/no-evidence-that-gay-gene-exists

Foxy,

If there ever was a specific homosexual gene, it would be very unlikely to be passed on, if the bearer, male or female, doesn't have any kids - certainly not over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. It would be a continually endangered 'species'.

Perhaps we need to move on, and concede that any tendency towards homosexuality is more likely to be cultural, social, or individual preference - i.e. it's a choice, perhaps under the influence of significant others.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I've always believed that homosexuality was not
a choice - but that it was genetically influenced,
as well as environmental, social, and cultural influences
having their effects as well. I don't think that it's
"one gene" but possibly a combination of variants.

Of course that's only my non-scientific opinion.

I do believe that more research needs to be done in
this area. We can;t at present draw any definite
conclusions as not enough work has been done.

My view is that the homosexuals should leave us alone & we'll leave them alone ! The problem is that the homosexuals aren't satisfied with being left alone. They perpetually draw attention to themselves without giving any thought to those who simply aren't interested in their doings.
Just imagine the outcry from them if normal people had "Normal People" parades etc ?

how on earth could you ever expect regressives to be honest about genes and biology. They don't even know a baby born with a penis is male. Their science is about as rational as the idiotic big bang fantasy. Order from chaos and something from nothing. What great 'science'. Backing sick narratives is far more to the point for regressives not science.

Until more scientific facts/truths are proven, I choose to continue with the last known science on queers.
And so far I have not heard/read anything further than these are faulty living beings with chemical imbalances of the brain.
So it follows that there would surely be several factors, and when they are all present, they direct that mind into questioning many things, including their sexuality.
This being so, should also invoke a feeling of caution once they realise they are different.
Not the opposite and threaten and thrust their mental impairment on the rest or the majority.
In their haste to dispel any idea that they are different, they embark on a massive campaign of forcing their illness upon the rest only because they insist on being regarded as special or better than the rest because they are different and therefore demand special status.

If there's a gay gene, then homosexuality can be passed off as natural, normal, or at least conveniently something no one has a choice about and should be tolerated and accepted.

If there is no gay gene that changes the things quite a bit. Then all of the sudden the issue of being gay and having the issues that are part of that are no longer just passed off as "just born that way." The issues you see and hear but don't focus on, don't have to be accepted as if this is just how it is. Heterosexuality is not full of saints and healthy relationships, however the rate of unhealthy sexual practices, unhealthy relationships, and issues with depression, drugs, and alcoholism are so high among the homosexual population that this should not go unnoticed. Especially if one of the common stories among gays is that they wouldn't choose to be gay if they had a choice, and that they've tried to be straight.

No, if genetics is not to blame then either A) homosexuality is a choice. (Too many homosexuals tried to choose not being gay and fail for this to be the case). Or B) there is environmental forces at play. Basically that we as a society have forced this lifestyle on some people because of the harms we allow to have their negative influence have influenced homosexuals to be gay without their choosing.

On the other hand if there are genetic influences as well as environmental influences, then the issue of society influencing people to be gay is still bad enough to try and identify the non-genetic influences. Maybe see if we can "fix" society and actually have compassion on homosexuals, instead of trying to have tolerance on an unhealthy compulsion that they have little choice about. (Celibacy is still an option regardless if a person is gay or not. To many unhealthy relationships exist because of people think it's better to be in a bad relationship then it is to be in no relationship)

Instead of just ignoring the private habits of a very few people and leaving them to it, the rabble rousers and dim voters have institutionalised homosexuality and denegrated marriage. There is not much point in talking about it. What is done is done; the West is on the way out, and there will be a reckoning, just as occurred in the past with the self-destruction of the Roman Empire and other ancient civilisations. Perversion, denigration of culture through multiculturalism, mass immigration and self-hatred will undo us, sooner rather than later.

.

To all and sundry,

.

Whatever the cause or contributing factors that determine our sexual orientation (I leave that to the psycho-socio-biologists), it is obviously a natural phenomenon.

Homosexuality is a perfectly natural phenomenon, just like heterosexuality. There is no such thing in nature as ‘the norm of the heterosexual union’. Both heterosexual and homosexual unions are ‘normal’. As Petter Boeckman, a zoologist at the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo, has pointed out: ‘No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist ... a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.’ Boeckman observes social advantages to the free expression of homosexual behaviour and adds: ‘It has been observed that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.’:

http://pactiss.org/2011/11/17/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality/

Religion historically regards homosexual sex acts as sinful, based essentially on an erroneous understanding of ‘natural law’ (the law of nature). Religious dogma is constantly proven wrong in its interpretation of nature by scientific research.

Homosexual behaviour has never been noted as a possible cause of the diminution or disappearance of any animal or plant species. There is no objective reason to discriminate against either heterosexual or homosexual behaviour as regards the adoption and raising of children.

Parthenogenesis or so-called “virgin birth” (when animals reproduce without a mate) also exists in nature. Female Australian giant prickly stick insects, for example, can reproduce by mating with males if they like or give birth without any male interference if they prefer :

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151216-virgin-births-are-happening-everywhere

So far as we human beings are concerned, the role of the State should be limited to the public – not the private – sphere, as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

That said, I totally agree with those who find the annual Gay Pride parade and similar public demonstrations particularly shocking and offensive. It does a great disservice to the cause of homosexuals who have difficulty being accepted and suffer the mockery, discrimination and even hatred of much of society.

.

BP,

I find your last paragraph to be the most relevant and informative of your last submission.
Submitting hermaphrodites as an example of normality, is fallacious at best, in poor taste at the very least.
Your concept of normal is not in keeping with the society's expectations and definitions.
I care not what some obscure academic contends, I base my opinions on what IS and not what ISN'T.
Such life forms may emulate that of homo-sapiens, but unfortunately for them they do not conduct themselves like what they appear.
As far as the so called experts suggesting that such individuals are normal in nature, is just a continuation of this fallacy.
It is much easier to accept a convenient lie than an inconvenient truth.
It's embarrassing and these experts lack simple social skills like courage, so they find it more comfortable to seek out a scenario whereby they come across as a "good guy" and don't have to face those difficult questions.
There is no way queers can ever be considered as "normal".
We only have to look around, do we consider midgets, albino's, and other mis-fits as "normal"?
NO!
So then, I reject any attempt at anyone trying to justify queers as being normal or natural.
They are a "broken" form of homo-sapiens, and that's it.
If they were the absolute and overwhelming majority, they would be the norm and we straight people would be the abnormal, just like they are today.
And as for the raising of children, look I can only assume by the language and theme of the posting that the author must be a queer themselves, if not then they are at very least a sympathiser, and therefore biased.
Children must absolutely NEVER be exposed to these mis-fits of nature, thereby saying to the kids that it's OK to be queer, creating a situation that a child should NEVER be placed in, and possibly forcing them to question their own sexuality, when it should NEVER have been an issue from the start.
Gene or no gene, they must accept that they're different, and NOT NORMAL!

To Banjo Peterson.

Being gay isn't normal. Whether it should be accepted, tolerated, and encouraged doesn't matter on the basis of it being normal. Normal as far as I can tell means to be common or somewhat common. However should homosexuality be encouraged? Regardless of being normal or not, there are huge hurdles if a person actually looks at homosexuality. Drug use and alcoholism are at a higher rate then the rest of society. By encouraging kids and adults to be actively gay it encourages them to be part of that culture. Same with a higher rate of narcissism, open relationships and just loose pants in general harming strong foundations in long term relationships, as well as issues with pedophilia. Higher rates of Depression, anxiety, and suicide.

Where your right is that Christianity condemns homosexuality as a sin. In the past, based on trusting Christian scripture, I held a private conclusion that if a person is gay the best option is to be celibate. However now that I've come into contact with several homosexuals, I would recommend celibacy for other reasons as well, and to recommend them to steer clear from gay gatherings like gay bars and gay pride parades. Keep the poison in those communities away from the person.

(Continued)

(Continued)

If homosexuality wasn't as uncommon as it is then the negative factors in that population wouldn't have to be at such a high rate. Unfortunately, even if the unhealthy aspects weren't a common traits among homosexuality, having a smaller population to look for to be actively gay means more exposure to the negative aspects and more of an influence on the gay person.

Going back to a change in society, I would say that if we could encourage a positive attitude towards being single and celibate, instead of settling for bad relationships, then I think many of the issues poisoning homosexual populations will lessen. Strive to be celibate because the alternate is harmful to the gay in multiple ways. After all if genetics isn't to blame, and gays too often don't think they have a choice on their sexual attraction, then the blame rests on the rest of us. On society as a whole.

It's about time that instead of just accepting homosexuality, and watch as more harm comes from it; to instead figure out what's causing the harms, or what are the environmental influences to create homosexuals. Either try and face and fix the harms in gay communities, or try and bandage the societal influence to not encourage more homosexuality.

encourage a positive attitude towards being single and celibate, instead of settling for bad relationships,
Not_Now.Soon,
There'd be no need if women were less demanding ;-)

Foxy,

I also read the article on the lack of any "gay gene" and what struck me is the obvious lack of understanding of genetics by the author. While many of the public assume that human characteristics are determined by a single gene the reality is that most characteristics are determined by a combination of multiple genes.

For example, there are about 20 genes which when some of them occur the combinations can produce ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, and in extreme cases bipolar and schizophrenia all to different levels. The same applies to height skin colour, weight etc.

That there are a combination of genes that can point to sexual attraction means that there is a clear link to genetics as a causal factor and also explains why same sex attraction is unlikely to die out as other combinations of these genes may produce individuals with qualities far more beneficial to the continuation of the species.

Dear NNS,

You write;

“If there's a gay gene, then homosexuality can be passed off as natural, normal, or at least conveniently something no one has a choice about and should be tolerated and accepted. If there is no gay gene that changes the things quite a bit. Then all of the sudden the issue of being gay and having the issues that are part of that are no longer just passed off as "just born that way." “

Did you even read the bloody article mate, or at least comprehend what you put into your original post?

It quite plainly reinforces the fact that there are genetic markers for homosexual attraction. Earlier studies relied on twin studies and family links to make the connection but this is by far the biggest step forward in showing a genetic component for same sex attraction.

I suspect given the age of the participants (as acknowledged by the authors) there will be a bias because of people who are same sex attracted but have chosen not to come out. I would be interested to see the age breakdown.

Just as with global warming you are choosing to see what you want in the science. This is your political beliefs coming to the fore and you should really work on putting those aside when you assess what studies like these are telling us.

Dear "individual"

Trust me sunshine, we would love you to leave us alone. However after reading the hate-laden comments on this thread I fear that may be some time off. Guess we will just have to be patient until you lot all die out and are replaced by a more compassionate, humane and tolerant society.

Meanwhile, expect me to continue being secure within myself and celebrating that with other members of my community and to point out the hypocrisy and cherry picking of their sacred text that many so-called christians engage in, in order to justify their position (to themselves).

SR,

I question the suggestion that these people are "normal".
It seems that if the medical profession has a set of indicators to ensure a new born is "normal"and healthy, anything which falls outside of that checklist is therefore by it's very structure, "abnormal".
We have a "road map" which clearly delineates the boundaries of what is normal, is the majority of society, today.
And the majority are "straight".
And this is confirmed by the fact that the overwhelming majority of people are the same in make up and form, so it is that we are n the "norm".
Anything else is not "normal"!
When it comes to these "beings", they are clearly not "normal", so I am perplexed as to why some want to see them as normal.
I had no problem with them all my life, till they started abusing and insulting us and making absolutely outrageous demands, all the while insisting they were being discriminated against.
So if I incur the wrath of the sympathisers, so be it.
I'm not the odd one out.
They are.

“Meanwhile, expect me to continue being secure within myself and celebrating that with other members of my community and to point out the hypocrisy and cherry picking of their sacred text that many so-called christians engage in, in order to justify their position (to themselves).
Posted by Aries54, Monday, 16 September 2019 10:35:20 AM

That’s the way to go: keep it in your community and don’t press it on the rest of us. You need to remember that you are a very tiny percentage of the population. Like all minorities, the more attention you seek, the more hostility you will experience.

AlTRAV,

Of course homosexuality is not normal. There is something wrong with the wiring of these people. However, we have to accept that there are people like that - and I'm not talking about posers who claim to be that way out of faddishness - and let them get on with their lives the best they can. It's only the loud and nasty who are a problem for society. It is the attempt at normalisation via SSM that puts me off. And here, it is the vicious straight Left that is to blame. They are using homosexuals for their own ends.

If Aries is genuine, and hangs around, he might be able to put things straight for everyone.

Dear Altrav,

Can an openly racist, misogynistic, homophobic child with mommy issues ever hope to be regarded as 'normal'?

Not in my book young lad.

Aries54,

Really?
You clearly display the traits you lot suffer from.
I gather you must be a queer, otherwise you must have the misfortune of being associated with one or more.
You have the gall to attempt to take the moral and undeserving high ground.
Your arrogant stance wishing us dead because you want to take a front seat in society, only shows why you lot are vilified and set aside.
You people deserve no more respect than criminals who actively and continually engage in house invasions.
You force yourselves and your doctrine upon us then try to virtue shame us into trying to make us the villains and yourselves the victims.
Well sunshine, whilst there are people like myself who will never be threatened by the likes of you and your lot, be aware, when I die thousands more will come, and it is your lot who are in the minority.
You may think you've won something right now, but just stand back and look as you lot now destroy each other.
We don't have to do anything.
So "trust ME sunshine", we don't even want to acknowledge your existence, so why do you think we need to leave you alone.
You really think yourselves much more relevant than you really are.
You see you people are the ones in turmoil, and lost, we know who and what we are.
So whether bigots or racists and of course not tolerating arrogant smart arse upstarts, is also one of our many qualities.
You are in the minority, get used to it and stop shirt fronting the rest of us.
And you wonder why we, as you perceive it, have "hate laden speech".
How stupid are you, when you say you can't wait for us to die, all in the same sentence.
You moron, now do you finally get it?

ALTRAV,

SR is the same as Foxy: both want you to respond to them to keep themselves noticed. They don't have a lot going for them in real life.

SR,

you never cease to amaze.
Of course the child you described is normal.
Just look around you when next you are conversing with "normal"people.
You just might be surprised.

Dear Altrav,

Sorry mate, I deal with normal people every day including gay people. You are most certainly not normal by any stretch of the imagination. You try and portray yourself as exceptional and openly think very little of ordinary Australians, but every post of yours screams 'Look at me, look at me!'.

It most definitely is not normal behaviour.

If "Natural Selection" is to mean anything, there can be no gene or
combination of genes propagated.
It would literally be a dead end.

ttbn,

Feel better?

cont'd ...

ttbn,

Don't confuse Steele's and my personalities
with our attitudes. Our personalities - reflect
who we are. Our attitudes depend on who you are.

ALTRAV,

Now he's accusing you of wanting to attract attention to yourself. A classic example of someone attempting to project his own problem onto others. Text book stuff.

ttbn,

You accused us of wanting to be noticed.

Tsk. tsk.

ALTRAV,

Just a thought on Aries54. We don't know whether he is a homosexual himself or just another pot stirrer thinking that posing as one will give him more authority.

Back to the topic...

If gay people's sexuality is determined by their genes
then isn't straight people's sexuality determined
by their genes as well?

Then why is one group considered to be normal, and the
other is not?

Isn't it more a judgement based on the religion, culture,
and society in which we live?

Just asking.

cont'd ...

Among American Indians - homosexuality was respected
not shamed.

Is being white - normal, and coloured not normal?

Being even-tempered normal, and bad-tempered - abnormal?

Is normality determined by what religion, culture,
ethnicity, gender, and which political party you support?

Everything is yellow to a jaundiced eye!

Dear Bazz,

Without variations to start with natural selection does not occur.

Evolution 101 my friend.

Alcowipes manufacturers are making a killing !

Individual,

You might want to try the alternative of -
Baby wipes (fragrance-free).
They're cheaper at Chemist Warehouse if that's
any help to you.

Alright,

enough stupid questions from the abnormal camp.
WTF do you people mean, by trying to win points by trying to turn this into a pigs breakfast.
Don't display your lack of reasoning, you all know very well what is normal.
Your trying to muddy the water by deliberately trying to mix normal with abnormal, when in fact you mean, tolerance.
A petulant child is normal but cannot be tolerated, you know, like you guys.
So stop it, you're at it again.
WE tolerate queers, and at the same time they are not normal.
Jees, just how smart are you people?
Let me, once again, make it clear to one and all.
If someone does not like a thing or a person; they don't like them!
OK are we clear.
You can try brow beating and name calling as much as you like.
Here's a real hard one for all you simpletons.
For example;
I don't like chili, alcohol, of any kind, smoking, of any kind, sports of any kind, especially the maggots, trying to look cool.
So does this make me abnormal?
Yes!
But I am still a normal human being with all my faculties that tick all the boxes as a man.
Being a bigot, a lech, a gambler, and so on simply make me a flawed man by your definition, but still a man never-the-less.
So stop trying to score with such pathetic lines of reasoning.
Queers are in a different category, as I have pointed out many times.
They're in a category all their own like midgets, and albinos and so on.
Trying to argue skin colour is just a bridge too far.
You can't be that stupid, as you know very well, we take a pale white person, take them to the outback for a while, and hey presto, you have a copy cat black fella.(not really just extremely well tanned)
So the article, in reality, has given some cred to what we have been saying for some time, but I say, watch this space.

SR,

For successful natural selection of any genes to pass onto future generations, reproduction needs to occur. Homosexuality makes that just a bit more unlikely ?

Joe

Dear ALTRAV,

We have very firmly established the fact that you are not a man as such but a child. Ultra childish adults are not normal, and I would claim, far less normal than our gay brothers and sisters.

To have someone like you far out on the spectrum calling themselves normal in any sense is if anything a little sad.

Perhaps some latency issues are at play here but whatever it is the more you rant and tantrum the more you expose your lack of normalcy.

I ask you once again to try and grow up a little.

Dear Loudmouth,

Granted, however they certainly can make great parents and provide and care for children in need.

Reproduction isn't the whole of the equation by any means.

SR,

by any standard, you fail to make the grade.
You are by far the most self centered, know-it-all,-nothing, on this forum, with always a snide word of condemnation for anyone, ANYONE!
Now you have opened your mouth and even though you are hard to understand, with your foot in it, I challenge you to comment on my points, if you dare, because as it turns out, children like yourself attack the messenger and not the message.
What is it, have you finally run out of arrogance?
I know you better than that, so c'mon, give it your best shot.
Like any child, you can't wait to go NYAH, NYAH.
So c'mon, critique my comments, I need a good laugh.
Your form of BS has no bounds, and you deliver it with such finesse, befitting that of a pretentious, pompous know-it-all, seeking to be the centre of attention, like the child YOU are.
We are excited to see what gems you come up with, can't wait.

ALTRAV,

Love it when you get angry, but it's a waste of time trying to get through to thicksos, wack jobs and lame brains.

Looks like the NSW Premier's job is on the line because she supported the decriminalisation of abortion bill. Spill on the way.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You wrote :

1. « Your concept of normal is not in keeping with the society's expectations and definitions. I care not what some obscure academic contends ... »

Petter Boeckman may seem “obscure” to you, ALTRAV, but he is a reputable Norwegian zoologist who lectures at the Department of Exhibitions and Public Services of the Natural History Museum in Oslo.

As you can see from the article for which I posted a link, it was Petter Boeckman who stated that “There is no such thing in nature as ‘the norm of the heterosexual union’. Both heterosexual and homosexual unions are ‘normal’”. I do not pretend to be a qualified zoologist, ALTRAV. I was simply quoting Broeckman.

2. « Submitting hermaphrodites as an example of normality, is fallacious at best, in poor taste at the very least »

I did not submit that, ALTRAV. You are the one who mentioned “hermaphrodites as an example of normality” on this thread, not me. I indicated that “homosexuality is a perfectly natural phenomenon, just like heterosexuality”. The only other example I cited was parthenogenesis which I observed “also exists in nature”.

You are constantly confusing “natural” and “normal”. The two terms are different. “Normal” means “conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected” (OED).

Whereas “natural” means :

« Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind » (OED)

As regards the “norms” in respect of sexual orientation in Australia, here are the latest statistics :

« In 2014, over half a million people or 3.0% of the adult population identified as gay, lesbian or 'other'. This includes 268,000 people who identified as gay or lesbian and 255,000 people who identified as having an 'other' sexual orientation. Just under 17.0 million adults identified as heterosexual. Identification as gay, lesbian or 'other' varied by age, with high rates in younger age groups » :

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4159.0

3. « I base my opinions on what IS and not what ISN'T »

That’s encouraging, ALTRAV. At least we should be able to agree on the facts.

.

To Foxy.

According to the articles that I started this topic from the genetic link is only accountable for a very small portion of the characteristics of homosexuality.(that or that the genetic factors identified only account for a very small portion of the gay population in the study). This means to me that the genetic influence is a very small one instead of the smoking gun it's been thought of before. The articles even state that though a genetic influence is identified, there's no way to determine homosexuality by looking at the genes of a person.

With that in mind I would say that the factors that are then more influential are the environmental factors that the study says are also part of the equation. However the environmental factors are not as studied. Or at least I don't know of any studies to identify environmental factors.

That said sexual attraction and preference seems to be strongly not a choice. In fact the arguments of nature verses nurture can be applied to sexuality more then most other behaviors , because people don't choose to be attracted to the same sex or to the opposite sex. I am not arguing that if it's not genetic then it's our choice. But the study seems to point to a genetic influence being a very small one. Not the main influence.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Regarding homosexuality not being normal, as far as I can tell it isn't normal. Banjo Peterson referenced that only 3% of the population identify as homosexual. Normal shouldn't be the frame of mind to decide if it's healthy or not. Adultery among heterosexual I would say is much more normal then any type of homosexual, but adultery is definitely not healthy, instead it kills family ties and cripples relationships. Being more common, and more normal doesn't make anything right/wrong, healthy/unhealthy.

As far as I can tell homosexuality has a lot of unhealthy vices in it. Either because of a cultural phenomenon within homosexual populations with more likely for STIs, abuse, and shallow relationships. Or because only 3% of the adult population is homosexual then that means there is less fish in the sea to choose from for homosexuals to hold standards for in making healthy relationships. Either reasoning, it still is an unfortunate issue that homosexuality can be linked to several other unhealthy elements. For those that are homosexual I think the best option is to strive to be happy being single instead of going from one bad relationship to another, continually thinking they are a failure or otherwise unfit to date because of lack of success. Or worse, find a relationship that is tied to drug abuse and alcoholism.

Regarding the genetics or the environmental factors. If there is more influences in the environment, and if homosexuality has many unhealthy issues. Then I think we should look for what we as a society are doing to add to those influences, and strive to not do them. (If that's even an option. There are no resources or studies I know of to point to the environmental factors in homosexuality. Perhaps those factors are something society can work on, perhaps they are things that can't be removed. Without some study in that area, there are no answers).

.

Dear ,

.

You wrote :

1. « Being gay isn't normal. Whether it should be accepted, tolerated, and encouraged doesn't matter on the basis of it being normal. Normal as far as I can tell means to be common or somewhat common »

As I just indicated to ALTRAV, I simply quoted the Norwegian zoologist, Petter Boeckman, who stated that “There is no such thing in nature as ‘the norm of the heterosexual union’. Both heterosexual and homosexual unions are ‘normal’”.

As regards the “norms” in respect of sexual orientation in Australia, here are the latest statistics :

« In 2014, over half a million people or 3.0% of the adult population identified as gay, lesbian or 'other'. This includes 268,000 people who identified as gay or lesbian and 255,000 people who identified as having an 'other' sexual orientation. Just under 17.0 million adults identified as heterosexual. Identification as gay, lesbian or 'other' varied by age, with high rates in younger age groups » :

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4159.0

2. « … based on trusting Christian scripture, I held a private conclusion that if a person is gay the best option is to be celibate »

Celibate, of course, means “abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons” (OED).

Celibacy is contrary to the ordinary course of nature. It is abnormal and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to respect. Many have tried and many have failed. It often has quite dramatic consequences such as paedophilia which could otherwise have been avoided.

There is nothing morally reprehensible with homosexuality when it is practised between freely consenting adults. Religious doctrine is ill-founded and should not impose such unnatural behaviour as celibacy.

That said, I fully agree that homosexuality should not be encouraged, but nor should it be discouraged. The Church should not afflict its homosexual devotees with a sense of guilt simply because of the sexual orientation that nature attributed them with. They are no more guilty than devotees whom nature attributed with heterosexual orientation.

That’s not divine justice, Not_Now.Soon. It’s divine discrimination.

.

.

Of course, that was intended for Not_Now.Soon.

Soory about that.

.

To anyone reading this discussion who is homosexual,

I'm sorry if you feel that I am being hateful in this discussion. Either being hateful, being a bigot, or otherwise being oppressive to you all. That is not my intention. The few friends that I know or have known who are gay just show some issues that are a concern to me. A greater dependance in drugs and alcohol is one of those issues. Being set up in shallow, fickle, or abusive relationships is another. It's not out of hate that I suggest to look into lessening the enviomental factors that could cause homosexuality. It's because of concern. After all, one thing I've heard several times from homosexuals is that if they had a choice they wouldn't have chosen to be gay. That in itself should be enough of a red flag to raise up the same issues I'm bringing up about the negitive elements of homosexuality.

Again sorry if this all reads like bigoted or hateful. The concern is real, and the issues are usually ignored, or at least not talked about.

To Banjo Peterson.

Look at the comments I made in the context I made them. In one post you quoted I made a distinction between normal and healthy. Being abnormal doesn't mean unhealthy or healthy, nor does being normal mean being healthy or unhealthy. In that post I did say that homosexuality is not normal. I stand by that assessment. If there was more people who were homosexual then there might be a better chance for healthy, stable, homosexual relationships. Being a very small minority means that there are not plenty of fish in the sea to choose a mate from. That is the unfortunate reality of the size of the population who are homosexual. The point of whether homosexuality is healthy or not, I think should be the focus of your remarks.

The comment on religion being against homosexuals, look at the context of that comment as well. I have been taught that active homosexuality is wrong according to the bible. But I did not know why for a long time. My thoughts on the matter were about striving to be obedient to God, regardless if you knew why it was considered wrong.

However, as I said in the comment you referenced that was then. Now I've come to understand more of the situations around homosexuality. There are issues. Enough of them to justify the bible teaching that condemns homosexual acts. I've said as much in that same comment.

As for absence and celibacy. I don't think those cause as many issues as an actively gay life will cause. In fact an unfortunate issue is pedophilia in gay communities. Men and boys having sex is both a gay issue and a pedophilia issue. They overlap and come up too often to ignore. It would be better to embrace being single then to trivialize and make it sound romantic that a grown man and a teen start a secret relationship.

Banjo,

responding by the numbers.
1. One thing I have learned in life, and that is, nothing is constant.
A new discovery is only new until another comes along and contradicts the former, and in a completely different way.
Your Mr Boeckman is entitled to his opinion, but I am referring to human animals not his traditional animals.
For us human animals, society and nature are in concert and both reject the idea that same sex relationships are natural.
They are not.
They have been allowed to exist now, due to a weak and gutless people not having the courage to stand their ground and not allow this distortion of the natural order of humanity to be mis-directed and perverted, by a gutless and mis-guided type of humanity.
2. BTW, it was you who introduced hermaphrodites into this thread not I.
Go back and look up your entry on the 16th.
Normal or natural, both tell the same story.
Queers may exist by some flaw in their construction or creation, so because of this flaw that makes them abnormal.
The fact that every living thing is a product of nature is not in dispute.
Nature produces flaws every now and then.
Queers are just one of many.
3. The facts and the truth, more often than not vary from each other, so do not rely on that theory.
The facts tell us that being queer is natural, because nature produced them, but so also did nature produce all the those born with physical and mental impediments.
Does anyone have the courage to suggest they are "normal"?
They are still not the norm.
No I'm sorry folks, suck it up, grow a couple and just accept that these are imperfect forms of homo-sapiens, and define them accordingly, do not facilitate them as has recently happened, but by all means feel sorry or sympathy for them.

From the Homosexuals I have met, I see a dominant mother, an older dominant brother, no father present or weak family leader, unsuccessful relationships with the opposite gender, obsession with sexual experiment from early age. All of these are damaged persons, some prone to suicide, and emotionally insecure. Society today considers all this as normal, and even encourages these perversions as normal, because it happens anyway. We have groups that promote paedophilia as a sexual preference that is supposed to be normal, while we criminalise. We once criminalised homosexuals as social perverts. There will come a day shortly when men will be able to marry six year old's as a second wife.

Banjo, it’s not wise to use animals as an example in this issue. Yes, most animals practise some form of same sex interaction but studies have shown that this occurs when no female partners are available. It’s similar to saying sex within male prisons shows that a high number of male prisoners are homosexual, when in fact it is only a situational behaviour.
In fact, according to an article in BBC Earth, the only true homosexual animals are domestic male sheep, and humans.
Also, animal behaviour is not something we should aspire to, as animals also practise pedophilia, group rape, incest, and sex with inanimate objects.

The article states that environmental issues are involved in forming a homosexual tendency. Studies show that homosexuals suffer higher rates of sexual abuse as children and this may well explain not only the gay tendencies but future difficulties with violent relationships that is common in gay partnerships.
The other situation that leads me to believe gay behaviour is environmental is the fact that many lesbian women seem to have had previous relationships with men, including long marriages and having children. And the marriages seemed to have ended acrimoniously. So these women are not lesbian, they are bisexual and how much of this same sex attraction is the result of a damaging experience with the opposite sex?

if that's any help to you
Foxy,
thanks for your concern but I'm not gay.

Guess what! When you have all finished arguing with each other over something you have no control over - thinking that the other bloke will come around to your way of thinking - the situation will be exactly the same as it is now. Opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one, and they are not going to make any difference, no matter how right we think they are. Each of us has one lousy vote every four years, and those votes don't make any difference either because we will always get politicians; politicians who don't give a stuff about us or our puny opinions

Dear NNS,

You wrote;

“As for absence and celibacy. I don't think those cause as many issues as an actively gay life will cause. In fact an unfortunate issue is pedophilia in gay communities.”

Are you really going to run that line when a Royal Commission in this country showed the celibate religious class in this country where abusing young Australian children in obscene numbers and where the percentage of offenders in some religious orders reached 25%.

Your faith has a hell of a lot to answer for. Go deal with the mote in your own eye.

Hi Steele Redux.

For your own time to educate yourself (it's fairly long), here's a link on studies of Catholic abuse.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026962/

The hard reality is the number of boys that were abused. With that in mind it sound like the issue is resolved if homosexuals are not allowed to become priests or higher up in the church. There are others in my opinion that should be kicked out of that kind of office, such as those who commit adultry should no longer be allowed to be a priest or an elder. That's for any church, not just the Catholic Church.

Though I doubt you want to hear of what I think should be standards for being a priest, the point is that homosexuals among the clergy is more to blame then celibacy is. Read the report. (On your own time. I don't expect you to read it all before this topic has gone away).

Individual,

Your interest in alco-wipes speaks for itself.

Foxy,

WTF is this obsession with alco-wipes?

ALTRAV,

Ask Individual - he brought up the subject.
I'm merely responding.

Dear NNS,

What a very ordinary report.

It flags its bias from the very start;

“A number of well-designed studies have found that men with SSA are more likely to have psychiatric and substance abuse disorders and STDs than heterosexual males, and are more likely to have a positive attitude to sexual relations between adult and adolescent males.”

But then gives scant data to back up the claim. There is also no discussion about how society's attitudes toward gay people have impacted their mental health and substance abuse levels.

It then flippantly dismisses the question of access of offending priests to boys which is appropriately one of the central planks of many of the reports on this topic;

“Karen Terry, a researcher who worked on the John Jay report, suggested that factors such as greater access to boys could explain the skewed ratio. Priests do not persevere in their commitment to vows of chastity, because they lack opportunity. If these offending clergy had been sexually attracted to women, it is a tragic reality that they would have no difficulty finding women willing to engage in sexual relations with them.”

What does that even mean and why does it refer to women instead of girls?

All in all pretty piss poor.

Do you have anything a little more objective?

It's interesting that for centuries, the Western
world generally viewed homosexuality as a moral matter,
as a sin that might evoke divine retribution.

Then around the end of the nineteenth century, many
Western countries redefined homosexuality as a
crime; punishable by imprisonment.

But by the middle of the twentieth century, public
opinion - encouraged by psychiatry - once again shifted,
and homosexuality was viewed primarily in medical terms.

Homosexuals were considered "sick" and psychiatrists
tried (and failed) to change their sexual orientation in
order to "cure" them.

By the 1960s, however an emerging gay liberation movement
insisted that homosexuality is simply a different
lifestyle.

In 1974 the American Psychiatric Association accepted this
view, and gave millions of homosexuals an instant cure
by simply voting the "disease" out of existence.

The obvious fact that physicians cannot similarly vote
away cancer or diabetes points up the difference between
what is considered deviant behaviors and physical
ailments.

It is therefore doubtful whether what we consider deviant
behaviors are medical problems in the any scientific
sense. Yet our taken-for-granted social reality now
includes the notion that certain forms of" deviance" are
"diseases" and therefore are not "normal".

In practice, therefore, the medical profession's
definitions and redefinitions of "deviance" both shape
and reflect the changing norms and values of society.

Design shows clearly that homosexuality is not natural. Normal is whatever a society accepts. So yeah it might be normal but not natural (against design). Old uncles taking young girls was very normal in Indigenous communities. In Rome men using young boys for sex and women for reproduction was normal but a very sick practice.

Rome men using young boys for sex and women for reproduction was normal but a very sick practice.
runner,
And, look what happened to the Romans. Maybe things would have turned out different if they had Alcowipes for their unhygienic practises ;-)

Individual,

Alco-wipes should be recommended for all kinds of
"disorders". Be they drug abusers, self-injurers,
plastic eaters, anorexics, sadomasochists,
w**#ers, flashers, mastur**ters, pedophiles,
et cetera.

Dear runner,

You wrote;

"In Rome men using young boys for sex and women for reproduction was normal but a very sick practice."

Effectively little seems to have changed. All they have done is elevated themselves to leaders of the Roman Catholic church and done away with using women for reproduction. Everything else stayed the same.

A woman hating Paul played a part in it. A hero of yours I believe.

To Steele Redux.

You said
<<It flags its bias from the very start;

"A number of well-designed studies have found that men with SSA are more likely to have psychiatric and substance abuse disorders and STDs than heterosexual males, and are more likely to have a positive attitude to sexual relations between adult and adolescent males.”

But then gives scant data to back up the claim. There is also no discussion about how society's attitudes toward gay people have impacted their mental health and substance abuse levels.>>

Actually it does cover these aspects later in the report. Go ahead and finish reading it before finding excuses to dismiss it and not read it.

That seems to be your crutch, to dismiss articles and research you don't agree with, long before you finish reading it to judge it in full. It's just an observation. However, if you don't address that issue in your future all it does is harm your own credibility. Something to work on.

To Foxy.

I'd argue that all matters of morals spill over into other matters as well. Or the other way around, the other matters spill over into the moral matters also. Homosexuality seems to show a higher rate of other issues then heterosexuality. Which at that point the question can be asked if they were born that way, or if the issues they went through as at a young age influence them in their trust or their sexuality.

On the other hand, with how frequent psychologists are able to find issues for their clients to keep treatment going, one other possibility is that a hetrosexual's history of issues might not be looked at as closely by the studies that found homosexuality with a higher degree of childhood problems.

Either way, I think any moral issue is going to take on other issues with it in it's wake.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You wrote :

1. « … Mr Boeckman is entitled to his opinion, but I am referring to human animals not his traditional animals. For us human animals, society and nature are in concert and both reject the idea that same sex relationships are natural »

We are all an integral part of nature, ALTRAV, and all life forms have much in common. We human beings are members of the animal kingdom and the ape family. We share 98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest relatives.

There is ample scientific literature attesting to the fact that same sex relationships exist among many species of the animal kingdom, especially bonobos, and, as we all know, they also exist among human beings.

These relationships are “natural” for the simple reason that natural means “existing in or derived from nature”.

2. « They [homosexuals] have been allowed to exist now, due to a weak and gutless people not having the courage to stand their ground and not allow this distortion of the natural order of humanity to be mis-directed and perverted, by a gutless and mis-guided type of humanity »

That’s a pretty appalling statement, ALTRAV. What you are advocating is nothing less than the "racial hygiene” eugenics of German Nazism – which, if it were put into practise, would constitute a crime against humanity.

In Nazi Germany, homosexuals were often given the choice of sterilization, castration, or incarceration in a concentration camp. The Nazis justified this by reference to a law passed in 1871, under paragraph 175 of the German penal code, making homosexuality a criminal offense. Under the Nazis, thousands of persons were persecuted and punished on the charge of homosexuality. Many were sent to concentration camps where they had to wear a pink triangle (rosa Windel) which singled them out for particularly harsh, cruel treatment. Not many of them survived.

Unless you change your mentality, ALTRAV, I have no intention of discussing this matter with you any further.

.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

The few homosexual couples I have known over the years are very respectable, intelligent, highly cultured people. They are well-mannered, polite and discreet.

They do not live in gay communities or frequent gay bars. There has never been the slightest suggestion that they take drugs. Nor have I ever remarked that they abuse of alcoholic beverages of any sort.

One of the couples I have in mind is the Australian ambassador to France and his husband :

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/08/australian-ambassador-france-proposes-marriage-equality-passes

Allow me to suggest that you might like to reflect upon the psychological an sociological effects of the attitude of parents, Church, fellow students, work colleagues and the wider community in general to homosexuals.

Homosexuality is not a default of nature, an illness, a sin or a personal fault of the individual. He or she is a normal person like all other normal persons. Some are black. Some are white. Some are yellow. Some are pigmies. Some have slanted eyes. Some have round eyes. Some are twins, triplets, quadruplets. Some are homosexual. Some are bisexual. Some are transgender, etc., etc., etc., …

If we accept that they are all normal, the world will be a better place.

They are not the problem. We are.

It's not up to them. It's up to us.

.

.

It's a pity you didn't write that, Not_Now.Soon.

Unfortunately, I had to do it.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I will admit you had me going before the last post.

Really well put.

Thank you.

.

Dear Big Nana,

.

Thank you for that interesting post. I appreciate it.

I’m sure there’s a lot of truth in it. However, I have read a number of research papers by people who have spent many years studying animal behaviour in their wild conditions and natural surroundings and their findings are different from those of the BBC Earth article you mention.

If you have any other sources of interest, perhaps you would be kind enough to share them with me too.

.

BP,

you have it the wrong way around.
I have the courage of saying it like it is, based on the "real" world.
You, and those like you, lack that courage and typically demand that, like the queers, the majority change THEIR mind to accommodate a very selfish and petulant few.
No one has ever given a truly clear and insightful reason as to why we have to tolerate such beings.
Trying to virtue shame people into submission with low brow and un-related examples in an attempt to win a point is not acceptable as it is merely a subjective argument, therefore irrelevant.
Trying to introduce Nazis into your argument only makes you desperate.
Firstly, you don't know what life would have been like had we lost the war, but I can tell you this, judging by all the gauges, Japan and Germany are among the best economies and people in the world.
Well educated, disciplined and respectful.
How the queers would have come out of it, I care less, but they would not have been allowed to threaten and coerce the weak and neutered of the public to allow such things as SSM.
And before you come back with any response that they are accepted, stop and think, they didn't win the war!
As for "racial hygiene", you should get out more, but you are quite right, this was done at the behest of the Jewish Elite, to rid themselves of imperfect Jews, as they believed, and still do, that the Jews are the true rulers of the world, and any imperfect Jews only demeaned and weakened their resolve and standing in the world.
So get rid of the riff-raff and the the un-chosen ones.
Anyway, I digress, this is but one theory written about the Nazi's and trying to understand their thinking.
Banjo, you, like your fellow neuters, are too invested in social justice to stand back and look at something objectively, without emotion.
Taking your reasoning, we should accept, thieves, rapists, miscreants in general, because "that's the way they were born", or
"they're a product of nature".

Dear NNS,

You say;

“Go ahead and finish reading it before finding excuses to dismiss it and not read it.”

I have read it and so much of it is absolute tripe. Parts of it read like a Christian pamphlet rather than a scientific report it touts itself as.

“For example, the father tosses his son up in the air. At first the boy is a little frightened, but then realizes that he is safe and this is fun and wants the activity repeated again and again. The mother may object “Be careful.” But the father ignores her. It is in moments like this that the boy takes the first steps on his journey to manhood. His relationship with his father becomes the foundation on which he builds his masculine confidence.”

So what happens to all the little girls the father tosses into the air? How does that build theri masculine confidence?

Also it throws the STD and Psychiatric disorders grenade into the text at seemingly random spots. Look at this stand alone paragraph;

“In order to be a truly healthy and mature priest—a man is ontologically changed and configured to Christ by the sacrament of Holy Orders and is also spouse to the Church and a spiritual father to everyone—it is necessary to achieve a strong interior life and affective maturity, that is, a healthy personality. Numerous well-designed studies published in peer-reviewed journals have found that men with SSA are more likely to suffer from numerous psychiatric disorders and STDs.”

What the hell?

I invite you to show me where there is a “discussion about how society's attitudes toward gay people have impacted their mental health and substance abuse levels.” because I sure didn't see anything more than a passing, very oblique mention “later in the report”.

AltRave,

My god, you have some repulsive ideas. I feel like giving OLO away for a while.

Joe

SR and NNS,

who are we talking about, that are subject to substance abuse?
I am assuming it's not society, so it must be the queers.
SR, I am perplexed as to why you might question this comment.
Plus, it's not like it's an impossibility that they would have mental health or substance abuse issues.
Heck I think it's a given, living a life of continually wondering what people are saying or thinking about you, and not in a nice way.
The SSM thing did them no favours either, only to further exacerbate an already highly divisive and controversial group of mis-fits.
If they have to resort to drugs and end up with mental issues, it sometimes means that the person/s in question have concerns and therefore doubts, which adds to the belief that they are not normal.
Normal people do not have doubts about who or what they are.
Normal people might have doubts about more mundane things, such as whether this coloured shirt would look better than that one, or whether they have enough food for their guests, you know what I mean.
No if they have doubts about their sexuality and their acceptance in society, they are at least justified about that.
In your last paragraph, you answer your own question, unknowingly.
You state there is no mention of something, yet you later say in the same sentence, that you DID see "passing very oblique mention, later in the report"".
So there was a mention, is it because you felt it was inconvenient to highlight it? or because it might weaken you argument.
Anyway, irrespective of "our" views or opinions, at least we can see some signs of doubt in their minds, which is a good thing, as it shows that they too are not completely au fait with there stance or what they are.
Which adds weight to the arguments against them.
And this indictment comes from within, not from society.

Dear Loudmouth,

I'm not sure where you were when this bloke was slinging off about 'abos' or calling noncompliant women 'maggots' but I certainly agree what has been written is utterly toxic.

But rather than leaving there is a path open to all of us when confronted with this level of toxicity, hit the little red recommend for deletion button.

It is as easy as a quick click and type a reason why. Why not have a crack?

SR,

YOU of all people do not get to decide, censor or control what people say on OLO.
Your views are just as toxic, it's just that I speak Australian, whereas you speak PC.
Instead of running off to "mummy" why don't you challenge my comments like a man and prove me wrong.
I'm man enough to take it, as I said "I say it like it is".

Loudmouth,

I'm sorry if you found my comments offensive.
May I know which ones in particular, as they are all based on historical articles garnered over the decades, and so I refer back to them at the appropriate moment as required.
I realise in life, there are a lot of distasteful things, both said and done.
But when they are said after the fact, in a discussion, it cannot be seen as threatening as it was said or done by someone else, and only being repeated by myself, in the interest of having a truthful and honest conversation and exchange of facts and opinions.
Whatever it is I have said of concern, please note I am not the author but the messenger.
I do believe that had you chosen the topic related to a certain ethnic group as a research project as you did with your fifteen thousand page work on the early Aussies, you too would discover some very sultry facts, which would leave you shocked and possibly dis-appointed.
So please accept my apology for any discomfort I may have caused, it was obviously not my intention.
I truly believe my writings to be factual, truthful and honest and I know they will differ in opinion to others, but I can assure you if I were to condemn or vilify anyone, I would make it very clear.
This is not such a case here.

Many people, seem to believe that gays and
lesbians are simply "born that way".

But since we know that even heterosexuals are
not "born that way," this explanation seems
unlikely. Despite extensive research, no
consistent evidence has been found for genetic or
hormonal factors that might predispose individuals
toward homosexuality - or, for that matter, toward
any of the other acts or preferences that occur in
the vast spectrum of human sexual experience.

Those who offer a biological explanation for
homosexuality seem to do so, in fact, only because
they can think of no other. But biological
factors cannot explain the different extent of
homosexuality in different societies at different
times, or the changes of sexual orientation that
may take place during the lifetime of an individual.

Homosexuality, like any other sexual behaviour ranging
from oral sex to sadomasochism to a pursuit of
blondes or brunettes, is learned.

We might well ask how people learn their eventual
sexual orientation - and, more specifically, why
do some become homosexual in the face of so much
discouragement in the socialisation process?

Several theories have been offered ranging from
early experiences, family environment, social
learning, self-labeling, cultural, religious,
and so on.

Cultural beliefs strongly influence the self-
definition that the individual makes.

ALTRAV, your last post is nastier than usual. It is not how normal Australians talk. That is just your justification for saying things which are unjustifiable. As moderator my attention has been drawn to your post. The part that I find most obnoxious is your antisemitism. BP might have brought Hitler in, but you've provided ample justification for his introduction of it.

There is no evidence that Jews were responsible for the holocaust, or punishment of homosexuals. And why would there be? It was something done to Jews systematically and indiscriminately by the Nazis. In the annals of human brutality it stands out as an extreme.

It seems you have some sort of a pathological problem with Jews, and that says something about you.

Your posts lower the tone of the forum to a stage where even those with a robust sense of what is fair in debate do not want to engage with you. I am considering banning you permanently.

This Forum is a very important space for the
exchange of views.

The internet can be
compared to a public forum, akin to a public
street or park. We have to be careful of our
rhetoric.

ALTRAV's posts have made me cringe
many times in the past.
His latest rant was disgusting.
It even had Joe (Loudmouth)
shocked.

ALTRAV has argued many times about his right
to free speech.

However, free speech does not give anyone
the right to vilify marginalised
groups on the basis of their gender, race, religion,
or sexuality.

I wish to Thank our Moderator Graham Y., for taking the
stand that he has.

Thank you, Graham.

Dear Foxy,

Not so much 'shocked' as, to use your term, 'disgusted'.

Regards,

Joe

PS. It's complicated but I had four 'grandfathers', and my favourite was my grandmother's Hungarian Jewish partner. He taught math at Ultimo. He'd been interned early in the War as an alien, then after the War, broke his back falling off the roof, so I spent a lot of time with him one way or another in Gymea while he recuperated, and afterwards. He wasn't observant, playing his guitar on a Friday night and getting merry. He and my granny were nudists, so we spent a bit of time down around Heathcote. He'd lost all of his relations except a brother fighting with Tito's partisans and a cousin in Rumania; he had brought out his mother in the thirties. That was it. So he and my English work-house granny were the only grandparents who I really ever knew. Always remembered with love.

Graham, I understand your caught between a rock and a hard place, but please understand that the things I say come from others.
I have witnessed them in every medium from literature to documentaries to researched papers.
I may not be able to produce the proof or origin of these stories because they are historical.
Never-the-less, they are no less true than they are confronting, and that's why I speak of them.
I am at odds to understand exactly what is the problem for speaking openly and honestly.
The things I say, the words I use, are not of my origin but they are well entrenched in the Aussie vernacular, and common everyday language in Australia, over the 60 odd years I have lived and interacted with all walks of life, from bikies to Prime Ministers, to kings and Sultans.
In each case I adopt the appropriate language and tenure as is appropriate for each situation.
I find it incomprehensible and unforgivable that I am questioned over what is my natural, unfettered and honest form of communication.
Unfortunately for OLO, it does not have a detailed and extensive list of sample words or phrases it prohibits, and therefore trusts us to edit our own submissions.
I believe I do exactly that.
I fully expect "push-back" from the other commentors, because they may disagree with my comments.
I do not understand the OLO's stance on what is essentially interactions between groups, factions and individuals.
Graham, I won't go on, I find it pointless if I am to be judged by one group and not everyone.
Anyway, in the interest of truth and facts, I might ask you look up my details in my original sign up on OLO, and look over my "BIO".
If you need I can happily send you my info via email if the BIO access fails.
I offer this so as to give a clearer picture as to my position.
Thank you.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Whether it be due to nature or nurture, the dividing line between male and female is often extremely fine. In some cases, it’s almost invisible or even non-existent.

I guess, as we go through life, many of us walk down the line not knowing if we’re walking straight and actually treading on it or not – could be that sometimes we’re on one side, sometimes on the other.

Quite frankly, I don’t think it really matters, as long as we accept ourselves as we are, or at least, as we imagine ourselves to be, right throughout life’s journey.

The problem is not how we see ourselves. It’s how others see us. Not what we think of ourselves. What others think of us.

Unfortunately, we have no control over how others see us or think they see us. That is determined by their own vision, humanity (or lack of it), intelligence, education, experience, sense of values and prejudices.

All we can count on is our own loving family, or whoever nurtures us, to help us through the early years and give us the means to see us through, undaunted and (hopefully) relatively unscathed, come what may.

.

Dear Joe,

Thank You for sharing something so personal.

Dear Banjo,

I'm still on my life's journey - learning as I go.
I accept people as they are and hopefully they will
accept me as I am. To me a person's sexual orientation
like religion - is a personal thing. I think that in
today's world judgements about right and wrong in sexual
matters are based on the attitude that moral behavior
is that which involves mutual affection and respect
and does no physical or psychological harm to those
involved.

Thank You for your comments. I always learn a great deal
from you.

Where to begin?

Through out my life I've known only a handful of homosexuals. And only known them in the settings I've been in. None of them I've known struck me as evil, horrible, or otherwise subpar to the population as a whole. Perhaps you've all had similar findings. Perhaps not. Nonetheless, there has been information I've come across that exceeds my observations. Stories and stats of suicide rates; observations from one individual about gay relationships and how they've been often from his point of view; studies once in a while that highlight homosexual population with risk taking, risky behavior, such as risky sexual encounters, drugs, and alcohol. And finally with regard to my faith, the bible condemning homosexual acts.

Perhaps these ongoing finding have colored my perspective and given me reason to worry about those who are homosexual. Three people I work with currently are homosexual. A few others throughout my life as well have made homosexual issues a struggle because of the struggle I'm sure a friend I see has to deal with.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Regardless of the struggle, the issues aren't about homosexuals being a victim to society. Though that perception and justification likely has it's own influence and merit based on people standing against something you identify as. The issues are the suicides, self harm, harm to each other (if that is reliable observations from the person I've heard from) as well as the issues of drug and alcohol dependance.

If you all who care so much about homosexuals to defend their case actually do care, then tell me this. How would you approach the topic as a whole looking for fixing the problems within homosexual demographics? Anything you say that is in the negative will be shamed for even bringing it up. Saying instead that it is not true and how dare I or anyone else say such things.

Regardless this conversation has veered far from actually talking about the issues, and instead to each of us defending our own views. So I'll this question.

How would you bring up issues within homosexuality? Things that affect a person's health, their relationships, or over all a negative atmosphere to be in. (Negative from the inside of the demographic, and/or negative from outside sources like society, family history, or previous abuses).

Last thought to consider.

If ....
A). Homosexuality is not a choice and most would not have chosen it for themselves;
And
B). Homosexuality is not genetic but has more environmental influences then genetic influences;

Then what does that mean for the rest of us? How do you apply this knowledge if these two conditions are true? As far as I can tell it means that you and I are to blame for the condition homosexuals are in. As a society being blind or unwilling to face some of the issues we live in that would force homosexuality on another. Both a situation many say they would not choose, as well as issues around homosexuality that make it an un-chosen path.

You might not like that there are negitive aspects within homosexuality, and in defense of the homosexuals you would defend against acknowledging any of those negitive elements. Even if they are the obvious statistical ones of higher rates of STIs that can be verified.

How much more would you all hate the accusation that these negatives are real and they are your fault that you share with society as a whole.

I listen to a fellow tell his story, for 30 plus years he believed he was homosexual, so built a life with another fellow. That relationship was never truly fulfilling. When that relationship broke down he then developed a relationship with a woman. He had a family with his wife, and stated it was the greatest experience of his life as he discovered who he really was. His homosexual identity was largely given him by his peers.

Hi BP,

" .... the dividing line between male and female is often extremely fine. In some cases, it’s almost invisible or even non-existent."

Except that males have male DNA and females have female DNA, and so far, scientists haven't been able to change that.

I've got nothing much against homosexuals although, being male, I'm much easier with gay women than with gay men. Being devastatingly handsome as a teenager, I had the odd hand up the leg from someone who I had thought was a friend. Nowadays, I still watch where friends put their hands.

But live and let live, on that condition. Of course, homosexuality has a long tradition, usually amongst the upper classes, as long as its practice was discreet, andas long as heirs were still produced by one's spouse, who could then do whatever she liked, as long as it too was discreet. I don't think gaols in earlier times were ever crowded with homosexuals, nor have they been recently, so there's a bit of special pleading in their claim of persecution.

Cheers,

Joe

To all my detractors;

I get very annoyed and confused when I am challenged by someone if only because they assume themselves superior, and have to get their own way every time, so set about picking on petty issues and acting the overly virtuous type, when they are heavily fault laden themselves.
I am continually attacked about my language and comments and references.
My language is always measured and in keeping with the theme of my message.
As I've always said, if you don't like what I say, too bad, don't read me, no seriously, don't read my comments.
If you are so sensitive and pure and without faults then I don't want you to read my stuff because you will not like it.
But do not stop me from writing it just because YOU don't like it when the majority do and accept it for what it is and not what you think it is.
Now as vindication of all the harrassment and vitriol and virtue shaming I have had to endure, I found it necessary to prove my point.
As I explained to Graham Y. my comments are merely repeating and passing on things I have read, seen, witnessed or heard over the many decades and many experiences I have lived through or been privy to.
So, to shut you whinging whining lot up and put paid to your continual and concerted unjustified attacks, the following link is but one I managed to remember, as I don't keep these things at hand, they do not make or control my daily life.
So knock yourselves out, and I will think about accepting your apologies.
Ah, what the heck.
You're welcome!

https://20thcenturytruth.wordpress.com/our-race-will-rule-undisputed-over-a-world-of-dark-peoples/

So if you have any problems with this article, it's not mine, just one of my references.
If you have an open and objective mind you will immediately identify with my comments and demeanor, regarding these kinds of Jews.
So from now on whenever I say something negative about Jews, you will not cross me if you have read this.
Otherwise you will show your hypocrisy.

Dear NNS,

As the principal variation on the norm of heterosexuality,
homosexuality presents a recurring issue for society.

The behavior occurs all over the world and throughout
history, although its form, acceptability, and
apparent extent varies greatly from one society to
another.

In many societies, as we know, homosexuality is taboo
and therefore practiced in secret, while in others the
behavior is more acceptable and thus more public.

Over the past decades the Gay Liberation movement has
substantially changed attitudes towards homosexuality,
and gay men and lesbian women are able to pursue
their lifestyles with relative freedom in larger cities,
many of which now have laws to guarantee their civil
rights.

I have lived and worked with and amongst many homosexuals.
And I have not known any to whom their sexual orientation
was a problem. I have not known any one who has denied
their homosexual tendencies to others or to themselves.
The people I knew and know, found ways to resolve any
conflicts they may have once had. I think our general climate
of acceptance has helped a great deal to neutralise earlier
conceptions of homosexuality as perverted or sinful and has
enabled gays and lesbians to build positive self-concepts.

The great majority of my friends have formed long-lasting,
affectionate relationships, many of whom are more stable and
enduring than those of some of my heterosexual friends.

cont'd ...

Dear NNS,

As for what contributes to homosexual or
heterosexual behaviour?

For centuries, the societies of the Western world
have shrouded sexuality in myth, taboo, and
ignorance. Even sociologists, supposedly dedicated
to studying social behavior regardless of the
prejudices and obstacles in the way, did not accept
human sexuality as a legitimate field of research
and study until after World War II.

Yet the fact remains that every society contains two
sexes, a feature that obviously has important and
far-reaching implications for personal behavior and
social life.

Sexuality is a significant ingredient of individual
personality. Sexual relationships have an even greater
importance in the broader societal context, especially
when they are institutionalised in the form of
marriage. The sexual bond between husband and wife is the
basis of marriage, which in turn, is the basis of family.

The family is the most basic institution in all societies.
It has the responsibility for, among other things,
legitimate birth, primary socialisations, the allocation of
various statuses and roles to its members, and the transmission
of property and other rights, from generation to generation.

It is small wonder, then, that every society carefully
regulates the sexual behavior of its members, channeling
their biological potentials into outlets that are
socially regarded as natural and moral.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear NNS,

Some aspects of human sexuality are still imperfectly
researched, partly because continuing social
inhibitions have hindered the accumulation of the
necessary information.

Nevertheless, there is now scientific knowledge about
sexual attitudes and behavior, in our own society and
in many others, to provide an intelligent understanding
of the subject.

To many people nothing seems more natural or even more
"instinctive" than their particular sexual preferences.

Ideas about what is sexually appropriate or inappropriate,
moral or immoral, erotic or offensive, are purely social
in origin.

If homosexuals abstain from heterosexual relations, then pretty obviously their DNA will not be passed on to anyone. Except for rare and fortuitous mutations, it's not likely that a 'homosexual gene' would have a long life, or be inherited. Any homosexual mutation would have a short existence and then - poof ! - become extinct when the homosexual bearer of that gene passes on.

So please, can we have a more sensible conversation ? Is it a choice ? Are people influenced to become homosexual, and by what or whom ?

Is it reversible ? In my extremely limited experience, lesbianism may be a reversible choice, a defence mechanism again predatory males, until the right one comes along. I don't think male homosexuality has as much reversibility, but I suppose it happens too, when blokes take on the responsibilities of heterosexual life, such as caring for kids for twenty years.

That raises the possibility that male homosexuals are merely being self-indulgent, not interested in the expense of ever raising a family - which makes one fear for the next generations.

But something must be at work, to generate new lots of homosexuals in each generation, otherwise they would quickly become an endangered species.

Joe

It's up to Graham as to what is acceptable here. I don't don't mind straight talk; what I do not like is the sneaky bullies, thinking that they are ever-so-nice, but who cannot leave alone other posters whose opinions they don't like. These bullies go on and on about every subject there is, including those they clearly don't know a thing about - regaling us with 'references' from non-OLO contributors from whom they take their instructions like the faithful little comrades that they are. I never look at their posts these days. The ALTRAV-haters could do the same with his posts; he probably doesn't need your support. I hope that he can satisfy Graham's conduct requirements because he has more interesting stuff to say than 80% of other posters.

What we need is some fresh blood.

Dear Joe,

I've been reading quite a few articles in science
magazines on various studies and what they tell us
about sexual orientation. One thing that seems to
emerge is that human DNA cannot predict who is
gay or heterosexual. That sexuality cannot be
pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences.

Maybe this is because human sexual attraction is decided
by all these factors.

ttbn,

thanks for your input, your comments are exactly what I mean.
Any time I don't like or agree with anyone, and that's quite often, I don't go screaming off to mummy, just because little Johny took my bike.
I don't have many like minded souls here so I appreciate it whenever I find one.
I am however disappointed that Loudmouth found my comments displeasing.
I have always said that the things I say are quotes from historical articles or conversations, and so as to vindicate myself and shut the whingers up, I thought long and hard to dig up, just one of the articles I have taken my cues from.
Now if all my accusers will simply look at the link I have supplied earlier, all will be revealed.
As I have said before, if you don't like what I write, you can see the author at the bottom of each comment, don't read it, because it means you are too sensitive or precious to take it.
This article is but one of many.
If I am asked to produce more I can only try as they are all as I said, historical.
I hope they read the link.
Thank you.

Dear NNS,

It would seem you views are reinforced by the studies you are touting to the rest of us.

I mentioned how off the last one seemed with its emotive and flowery writing. You flagged it as conclusive evidence about the correctness of your own take on homosexuality, which would be fine if it were a proper independent scientific paper. It isn't.

I instead flagged it as bias, and after a little research it is obvious that is exactly what it is. But it is more than that, it is propagating the lie that the sexual abuse of minor by the Catholic clergy is because of homosexuals and their so called perverse and damaged psychologies.

Why?

Well the first of the authors is Richard Fitzgibbons MD.

“His work with married couples is strongly influenced by the writings and teaching of St. John Paul II, most especially Love and Responsibility. Dr. Fitzgibbons is a marital educator, offers a marital website on resolving conflicts in Catholic marriages”

“He has been an adjunct professor at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for the Studies of Marriage and Family (The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC) and a consultor to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy.”
http://www.catholic.com/profile/dr-richard-fitzgibbons

The second is Dale O’Leary, a freelance writer and lecturer whose books include “The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality and One Man, One Woman” and articles such as “The transgender agenda: forcing us to lie”.

Their paper was published in the Linacre Quarterly a Catholic “Medical” Association publication. The Association has about 900 members.

Once again I ask you if you have anything more substantive than what you have offered to substantiate your claims about homosexuals?

SR, I have read an interesting article on this issue, in fact I have read many, because I was struck by the disproportionate number of adolescent boys who were abused by catholic clergy. All of the articles concluded that homosexuality was involved in many of these cases, not only because of the demographic of children abused but other factors, such as the fact that it was found in the 70’s that priests had AIDS infection at four times the level of infection in the general community. Also, the number of homosexual priests was far higher than in the general community, some studies suggested 30% or more priests were gay.
I have copied the web address for this article but I’m afraid I don’t know how to make it do a direct link. Perhaps, someone could direct me.

https://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/plante.html

To my detractors,

"once more unto the breach I go", just to put another nail in the coffin of my detractors.
Smarmy lot, keep demanding proof of what I speak.
I have always said I speak the truth, I just can't be bothered or can't remember where I came across many or most of the "outrageous" claims, statements or comments I have been attacked over.
So once more I dug deep into the memory banks and days later managed to find once more the evidence or proof of where I came up with the, OH so unbelievable and ridiculous claim made by the link listed below.
I don't know how to transfer properly but I think you can blue and cut and paste from memory.
Anyway, there's another article of proof giving me further rights my detractors have tried to refuse me of.
So, read em, n weep.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves, especially you SR, you have proven yourself to be the worst virtue signaller of all, trying to claim some self righteous posture as if the "keeper of the forum".
HAH! in your dreams.
So here's more proof YOU asked for so hopefully you will stop this overbearing compulsion of yours and get off your soap box and back IN your box, like all the rest.

https://www.earth-matters.nl/11/13949/verborgen-nieuws/complete-list-of-banks-owned-or-controlled-by-the-rothschild-family.html

I know you want to say it's crap, rubbish, fake news, because it doesn't suite you or your position.
Well you have every right to do so, only this time aim your vial indignations at the author of the article and not at me.
Stop trying to take the gutless way out.
If you have a problem with the articles, then question the authors, not me!
I research and look for controversial stuff that you guys would not even think about, and that's why you find it all too much, because it IS extreme and hard to believe.
But find enough articles and discover enough things which confirm and back up each other, makes it hard to dispute, so I put it out there for discussion, NOT DERISION!

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

« How would you approach the topic as a whole, looking for fixing the problems within homosexual demographics … How would you bring up issues within homosexuality? Things that affect a person's health, their relationships … »

For what it is worth, Not_Now.Soon, my advice, is to consider that homosexuality is not a problem. It does not need “fixing”. It needs to be accepted as something that is perfectly natural, like heterosexuality. Homosexuality is the natural sexual orientation of 268,000 Australians aged 18 years and over who identified as gay or lesbian in the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). There were probably many more who, for various reasons, failed to declare their homosexuality.

In addition, there were 255,000 people who identified as having an 'other' sexual orientation. Together with the homosexuals and lesbians, they represented 3% of the adult population of Australia.

What really needs “fixing” is the negative attitude of families, Churches, fellow students, work colleagues, as well as the attitude of society in general. It is the denial, prohibition, rejection, stigmatisation, victimisation and sense of guilt that ostracises LGBTs and pushes them to live in ghettos with their peers.

As you may have observed, the ghettos are the prime fishing pools of all those who prey on the misfortunes of the LGBTs – sex, alcohol and drug dealers, first and foremost.

There’s nothing much you can do about it, I’m afraid. It will be a long time before attitudes change. Ignorance and intolerance are solidly anchored in an ocean of inertia by the massive iron chains of deep-rooted prejudices and archaic religious doctrine.

The best you could do, Not_Now.Soon, would be to try to make friends and establish a relationship of mutual trust and confidence with them. Perhaps, one day, they might turn to you for help and advice. And, if you persist, perhaps it may create a snowball effect and you end up becoming a sort of Mother Teresa for the Australian LGTB community.

Who knows, miracles do happen.

.

BP,

really?
Your going to go there?
You are seriously going to argue in favour of such a minority, it is not worth discussing.
So let's get this straight; you want the 97% of the population to change their lives and beliefs and much more, to accommodate the 3% of the population.
So the 97% are wrong to feel whatever they feel about this topic.
Your saying they MUST come into line with the wishes of the 3%.
At this point I think it prudent to say that if a person has a certain feeling or belief about something, it is some twisted logic to expect them to change just because the very thing they hate tells them to.
No matter how you spin it, I have given the example before, if someone doesn't like beer or smoking, would you as one of the 97% even consider smoking and drinking if 3% of the people said you had to.
Why is it so hard for the do-gooders to just accept that we are not all the same and there are people who just don't like or want to accept some things, whether they like it or not.
Now if they were mature pragmatic people they would understand and stop trying to convert decent people into accepting what the 97% consider un-acceptable.

Just give the LGBT their own special toilets & be done with it !

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for your eloquent post to NNS.
We can see from our own society that
over the past decades attitudes have
substantially changed towards homosexuality.
Gay men and lesbian women are able to
pursue their lifestyles with relative freedom.
We now have legislation to protect their rights.
This was illustrated by the large percentage of
those who voted chose to
vote for same-sex marriage in this country.

This was a remarkable and positive step - for
the recognition of the fact that our fellow
human beings are somebody's child, parent, cousin,
co-worker, teacher, neighbour, friend, or fellow
student.

HI BP,

If 3 % of Australians over 18 are either homosexual or 'other', what proportion of the next generation of children will they have ? 3 % ? Probably not. 1 % ? Perhaps less ? So, if homosexuality had a genetic component, how quickly would it become insignificant ?

And, of course, this is how it's been happening forever: heterosexual couples tend to have the kids; homosexual (and 'other') couples tend not to have all that many kids. So any homosexual gene would disappear rapidly from future generations.

So surely there must be other reasons why and how homosexuals seem to maintain their numbers ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Dividing the population into two distinct "either/or"
categories must fail because of the countless
ambiguous cases that arise - people whose desires
are heterosexual but whose behaviour is homosexual;
people who have homosexual histories but whose
current behaviour is heterosexual'people who alternate
between the two forms of behaviour; and so on. On the
basis of his research, Kinsey recognised that sexual
orientation is a continuum, and he accordingly
constructed a seven-point rating scale, with exclusive
homosexuality at one end and exclusive heterosexuality
at the other.

Subsequent studies are interesting. The following is
just one example:

http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html

History has shown us that many homosexuals do get married
and have children - for a variety of reasons. Hard and fast
rules do not apply to human beings - there are always
individual differences.

Dear Loudmouth,

Of course there is the corollary to your proposition, given the greater access to IVF will the genetic component of same sex attraction increase in our society?

As gay couples are more and more able to directly contribute genetic material to their offspring, it is going to be interesting to see if overall rates of those identifying as gay increase over and above what the impact of increasing acceptance of openly gay people.

Perhaps this in turn may be cancelled out to a degree that pressure on closeted gay people to have children within a heterosexual relationships to fit social norms is waning thus less genetic material being passed on.

Quite a fascinating thought bubble isn't it.

Dear Big Nana,

If you remove the s from the https at the start of the url it will present as a clickable link.

Thank you for the article. It was pretty unambiguous when it says;

"a high proportion of homosexual priests do not increase the risks of sexual abuse of minors by priests. Sexual orientation does not predict illegal sexual abuse of children and minors in general. Homosexual men are not more likely to engage in illegal sexual behaviors with children and adolescents than heterosexual men."

That unfortunately is not the narrative being put Not_Now.Soon

It would be interesting to see more data of course.

Dear Steele,

Dr Paul Collins tells us in his book, "Believers:
Does Australian Catholicism Have a Future?"
that "generations of gay priests have ministered to
both sexes successfully in the Catholic Church..."

Dr Collins refers to John Boswell's fascinating
book, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality"
where the Yale historian argues with meticulous scholarship
and considerable wit that from about the 5th century onwards
religious orders particularly provided homosexually
oriented men and women with a safe haven from the
intolerant and dangerous world.

Dr Collins points out, contemporary estimates of the
number of gay priests and seminarians vary widely and the
simple fact is nobody knows how many there are.

Part of the issue is that a large number of straight priests
have left the ministry over the last 30 years to marry.
Also a lot of gay priests have been ordained over the
last three decades.

It is clear that the accusation that gay priests are more
likely to be child molesters is totally wrong, and Catholics
have no problem with gay clergy whether they are "out" or
more likely integrating their sexual preference.

Hi SR,

Yes, it's conceivable that IVF may become a homosexual monopoly. But I doubt it, or that it will somehow keep up the numbers of homosexual-gene-bearing children in each generation.

So the principle still stands, that any homosexual gene, or association of genes, will very likely become extinct, unless homosexual couples get fertilised to the same extent as heterosexual couples have natural births. Do you think that is ever likely ? After all, amongst the major 'reasons' for homosexuals to form couples is not likely to be the burning desire to have children. Children bugger up one's self-indulgent life-style, surely ? It forces choices: a cruise around Alaska this year, or a kid ? The latest Lexus or IVF ? Really ?

Just by the way, do you really think that homosexuality is some sort of progressive or left-wing issue ? Tell that to the English upper classes :)

Cheers,

Joe

SR, this May be semantics but most of the abuse of children within the church is not paedophilia, but hebephilia. The vast majority, ie 80% has been quoted, are boys aged between 11 and 17.
I cannot imagine any heterosexual man being interested in a 17 year old boy, can you?

Dear Steele,

Members of disliked minority groups are often
stereotyped as representing a danger to the
majority's most vulnerable members.

For example Jews in the Middle-Ages were accused of
murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices.
Black men in the United States were often lynched after
being falsely accused of raping White women. Many
non-Indigenous Australians believe that Indigenous
Australians coast through life receiving privileges
and benefits.

In a similar fashion gay people have often been portrayed as
a threat to children. That a gay teacher, or parent could
sexually molest children. Whereas a heterosexual teacher
or parent could not.

Thankfully the number of people who believe these myths
that gay people are child molesters has declined
substantially.

Dear Big Nana,

I'm not sure you are aware of this story;

"When Peter was seven, he and his younger sister were abducted and sexually abused for days before being released. He was abducted again at 11, this time with his older brother, and taken advantage of by a paedophile gang for several days before they escaped. Later, he was again molested by another man. This abuse led to a profound sense of self-loathing, fear, and uncertainty in Peter, magnified by his family’s rootless lifestyle as they spent his childhood travelling around Australia in a station wagon."
http://www.adefenceofthebible.com/2017/05/23/peter-brocklehurst/

So was the person who first abducted Peter and his sister a homosexual incapable of attraction to the opposite sex or a heterosexual incapable of attraction to the same sex? If so why were both brother and sister raped for days by this man? Or could it be that some people who find themselves in positions of power and control over children are sexually aroused by the feeling of dominance over another human being?

Dear Foxy,

I naturally agree. Thankfully attitudes are changing for the better, in my opinion at least.

To Banjo Peterson.

Do you suggest that acceptance of homosexuality will mean the problems within homosexuality will go away? I don't think that is true. I don't think the problems are even known my that many. Think of it like this. In the Catholic Church the issue of sexual abuse has become too big an issue to ignore. But it isn't acceptance of the church that is going to make any changes. It's awareness of the problems and determined steps to change that is going to make a difference.

If the only issue is acceptance then in countries that accept homosexuality more should show the homosexual population in a better state. However I don't think this is the only issue. I've read that the Netherlands is very tollerence and accepting of homosexuality, with only a small population that is not accepting of it. However I still also read that the rates for suicide and drug abuse among homosexuals is higher then it is for heterosexuals.

For whatever factors that have homosexuality at a higher rate of suicide and drug addiction (whether it's overwhelmed by not being accepted, or by greater harms like abuse at a young age), regardless of the reasons there's more then the original factors that influence the problems, but now also a culture with those problems rooted into it.

(Continued)

(Continued)

The issue of health is a big issue as well. This one I've heard growing up has gotten better, homosexuals are practicing safe sex. I learned this only to find out later that this isn't really true. The rates of STIs among homosexuals (if you look at actual data instead of listening to experts with a cause) is higher then it is among heterosexuals. This raises a huge red flag because the agendas for homosexuality and tolerance makes itself bigger then the problems within homosexuality, and buries the issues under the rug. Something is very wrong when the truth has to be discovered because the experts in a field lie about health information. This means there are likely other lies being spread if the truth is inconvenient. I doubt many homosexuals even know there are issues in their demographic outside of not being accepted.

Kindness and love I would say are needed for homosexuality (as well as for everyone else), but you do not have to accept or tolerate an abusive relationship in order to care for a person who is in it. (Many families and friends of those in abusive relationships try to encourage them to get out of it. They do this out of love). A similar issue of drug abuse is about those who love and care for someone cutting off contact with them. Either as an incentive for them to clean up their act and to not support it, or because the person has become untrustworthy because of the effects of the drug, or because of what they do to keep their supply.

Maybe this sounds harsh and extreme measures when referencing homosexuality. But if this small demographic (about 3% of the general population) has noticeable trends towards abuse in relationships, dependance on drugs or alcohol, and suicide; then there should be something done as a reaction.

The only reaction I recommend is to recommend two things to gays:
1) to have nothing to do with gay bars, pride parades or other organized gatherings.
2) to be celibate and not be sexually active.

To SteeleRedux.

The narrative I'm presenting about catholic priests is that the large majority of abuses were towards males, not females. If this does not show a homosexual factor, then perhaps I misunderstand what it means to be homosexual. Expecially if sexual abuse among the general public (not among the catholic priests) is to show more girls and women are the abused. As much as you dismiss the source I gave you because the author has more of a Christian outlook, there is still a staggering amount of information within that report to reference. For instance the information on the Netherlands is referenced in a study in that report, as well as a very large study on Catholic priests sexual abuse is referenced throughout the paper I referenced.

The point on priests though is not about the dangers of homosexuality, it is to correct you that absence from sex is unattainable and resulted in the sexual abuse in the church. If that was the case then there would be more numbers of girls and women either being abused as well or caught up in a scandal of the church.

The points and the narrative I give (if you will allow it), is that

A). There are issues within homosexuality.
And
B). Two possible solutions is to distance homosexuals from the negative influences in their group by not going to organized gathering for homosexuality, as well as to take the measure to abstain from sex.

That is the narrative that I am giving. The issues I point out in homosexuals is not to make them out to be boogiemen to watch out for and protect your children from. It's to actually show that there are issues within the demographic. Things that need to be recognized instead of ignored in order to make them better.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Perhaps you might understand this issue if you've seen the issues in other people that aren't homosexual? Suicide, drug abuse, and damaging relationships are real problems for anyone who faces them, homosexual or heterosexual. If you've not faced suicide, had to cut off a friendship due to drug issues, or tried to help someone out of an abusive relationship; then you're likely not seeing these as real damaging issues, but just a statistical number with a problem attached to it.

Let me say it again in case you missed it or I was unclear. What do you propose to do to help homosexual demographics because of the higher rates of abuse and suicide? Because saying there isn't an issue make you part of the problem, not me.

NNS,

I believe you may be one of a few who have the courage to mention the mental and emotional disorder, seemingly prevalent in these people.
I have read of mental, chemical imbalances of such people, the possible cause of their discomfort and stress due to orientation and acceptance issues.
If one is always in a state of discomfort and emotional turmoil, it is obvious that they would seek comfort, wherever and in whatever form they can find it.
It may be in the form of a person or alcohol, or other drugs.
People are judgmental and usually end up having nothing new to say and so keep repeating any previous messages, which ultimately, does not help.
Where-as drugs, give them an escape and it does not judge, nor does it become boring, because in fact you crave it more than say, a mentor.
So their problem IS one of mental disorder, and less to do with all the reasons given so far.
Not saying the aforementioned reasons are not in the mix, but the base and main cause is this mental disorder, then these other factors direct their various choices and states of mind or preferences and life choices, which control or direct one to do and make the choices they eventually end up making.
So given this notion, it is more helpful to find medical means of curing what is a medical problem, and in the meantime try to make them aware of their plight, but always ensuring that they understand that they are in need of help, and we must accept this and not expect, as some stupidly suggest, that we should become more accepting of these people by changing our position and not them changing theirs.
Tolerate, possibly, but we have to accept the fact that they are like anyone with a mental disorder, and just because they thrust themselves and their wishes upon us, mostly in a threatening manner, at anyone who shows any discord, simply demonstrates a flaw in their psyche which is not evident in anyone without mental and therefore emotional issues..

To Banjo Peterson.

Do you suggest that acceptance of homosexuality will mean the problems within homosexuality will go away? I don't think that is true. I don't think the problems are even known my that many. Think of it like this. In the Catholic Church the issue of sexual abuse has become too big an issue to ignore. But it isn't acceptance of the church that is going to make any changes. It's awareness of the problems and determined steps to change that is going to make a difference.

If the only issue is acceptance then in countries that accept homosexuality more should show the homosexual population in a better state. However I don't think this is the only issue. I've read that the Netherlands is very tollerence and accepting of homosexuality, with only a small population that is not accepting of it. However I still also read that the rates for suicide and drug abuse among homosexuals is higher then it is for heterosexuals.

For whatever factors that have homosexuality at a higher rate of suicide and drug addiction (whether it's overwhelmed by not being accepted, or by greater harms like abuse at a young age), regardless of the reasons there's more then the original factors that influence the problems, but now also a culture with those problems rooted into it.

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« If 3 % of Australians over 18 are either homosexual or 'other', what proportion of the next generation of children will they have ? 3 % ? Probably not. 1 % ? Perhaps less … any homosexual gene would disappear rapidly from future generations … So surely there must be other reasons why and how homosexuals seem to maintain their numbers ? »

Your logic is impeccable, Joe. As you say, “there must be some other reason …”. What could that be ?

Scientific studies and reliable statistics, to date, are hard to come by. It’s no secret that social science is heavily politicized and what does exist tends to be problematical – especially anything to do with such a sensitive subject as homosexuality. As a result, so far as I can judge, at the present time, it’s anybody’s guess, I’m afraid, Joe.

Same-sex couples can, of course, have recourse to a member of the opposite sex in order to reproduce, but, for obvious reasons, that must necessarily be limited to a happy few.

According to the biologists, X chromosome is female and Y chromosome is male. If a human foetus has XX, a female is born and if XY, a male. That means that the main factor for sex determination is the presence of a Y chromosome. Also, some males are born as XXY and show some female physiological characteristics. Some are born as XYY and show very aggressive male behaviour. So much for the basic biological sex differentiation.

As it seems it has not yet been clearly established that there is any such thing as a “homosexual gene”, if I were to hazard a guess as to “why and how homosexuals seem to maintain their numbers”, I suggest that it might well be in the mind.

We know next to nothing about how the mind works and the mechanics of the brain are particularly complex, but I suspect that the “why and how” are somehow generated by the interaction of the mind with the brain.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Our conscious mind is produced by our brain and allows us to be aware of our own existence as well as that of our environment. It can determine our thoughts and behaviour, but it does not have access to our unconscious mind which can influence it “surreptitiously”.

As I posited in my last post to Foxy, I think the dividing line between male and female is often extremely fine and the interaction between mind and brain may possibly have an overall determining influence on our sexual orientation – despite our biological, chromosomal sex identity.

.

BP,

might this not be a part of the chemical imbalance suggested by some researchers, that form the basis of the main cause or problem, and can be narrowed down to the source of the flaw.
Don't quite understand your proposition of mind and brain, although it sounds worthy of further consideration, just can't get past the thought that they are one and the same.
Maybe it's just semantics, but I will need more info before I can fully understand the concept of mind versus brain.
I thought the word "brain" is the physical and tangible description, where-as "mind", was the intangible description of the one and the same thing.
But now, having read your comments, does leave me with questions, so I'll have to brush up on that.
Although a quick Google confirms my take on the words and their description, which I feel relieved about, and that the word "brain" is the physical description, and the word "mind" is the "non" physical and more the function of what's embedded between our ears.
I don't think we can relate the two words within the same spectrum.
As I suspected one is the tangible description and the other the intangible.
So if I were to refer to your theory, I suppose I would consider the left and right quadrants instead of the mind versus the brain, theory.
I say this, based on my understanding of your theory, which I have already admitted I am not fully recognisant of.
Given time I may catch up yet.

SR, no I’ve not heard that story about Peter but I take note of the age when the abuses occurred. As he was only 7 when he and his sister were abducted, then I would presume the perpetrator was a true pedophile. However, when he is abused when he
was older, there is no mention of his sister being abused as well, and that is where I would query that wasn’t pedophilia but hebephilia, and more likely to be a homosexual attack due to the age of the boy.
I don’t know if you saw the headlines about this recently released book but the author makes some startling claims.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/12/four-in-five-vatican-priests-are-gay-book-claims

Dear Big Nana,

We don't know whether the sister was abused later but it wasn't in Peter's shared history with her so I would caution about putting too much stock in that feature of his story.

From the figures it appears that there is more abuse of females between the ages of 0 - 7 than males but the statistics do dramatically swing toward male victims in later age groups. I suspect there is a lot of mirroring with access to minors by priests. The fact the sexes are dealt with separately within the religious school system and priests were given charge over boys while nuns give predominately the same over girls.

In the case of Pell it was access to choir boys for instance at the cathedral, a boys only camp at Phillip Island and a boys only excursion to the Torquay SLS Club.

The opportunity to get a child alone in the younger years would have been notably harder and I submit this is responsible for much of what we see in the statistics.

Dear Big Nana,

Thanks so much for the book reference.
It's on my "to-read" list.

Undoubtedly it will evoke outrage - from the
description. Especially I imagine from the
luxury in which they live and their excesses.

I wonder though whether the book does equate
being gay with child molestation? I guess
I won't know until I've read it.
I also wonder what percentage of the priests
who are gay, are sexually active?

A system founded on secrecy, founded on a clerical
culture of secrecy which starts in junior seminaries
and continues right up to the Vatican itself - should
not surprise any of us at what gets hidden. Although
for many of us it will probably be hard to understand.

Behind rigidity there's always something hidden, in many
cases a double life. However the resulting schizophrenia
in the Church will be hard to understand. Especially the
extreme homophobia.

Again - Thank You for the reference.

Frederic Martel the author himself is openly gay
and he's written a few books on the subject. He
seems to sensationalise gayness by now devoting
his inquiry to Catholic officials.

One has to ask - what is his intent?

Dear Big Nana,

Rather topical I thought.

“The Wall Street Journal revealed Morrison had wanted the Hillsong Church pastor Brian Houston to be a guest at the glittering black-tie function, which included special guests Lachlan Murdoch – but not his father, Rupert – the billionaire box magnate Anthony Pratt, miners Twiggy Forrest and Gina Rinehart, and the golfer Greg Norman.

But, according to the Journal, the White House declined Morrison’s request.

Houston, the founder of the evangelical Hillsong Church, failed to alert the police about allegations his father, Frank, had sexually assaulted children, and had a conflict of interest when he assumed responsibility for dealing with the accusations, according to the findings of the 2014 royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. Frank Houston abused up to nine boys in Australia and New Zealand and, in its final report, the royal commission found multiple failings within the church executive – at the time led by Brian – in responding.”

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/21/morrison-toasts-unconventional-trump-but-hillsong-pastor-reportedly-rejected-from-guest-list?CMP=soc_567

So what in your opinion was Frank Huston?

“During Houston's tenure as lead of Assemblies of God in New Zealand from 1965 to 1977, he allegedly abused as many as nine young boys in New Zealand and Australia. One victim in Sydney was routinely subjected to sexual abuse from the age of seven to 12. In 1999, his mother reported the abuse to the church ... By November 2000, internal church investigations had discovered several additional cases of child abuse. Although Brian Houston and the Assemblies of God executive council were legally obligated to report the crimes, they did not do so.  Frank Houston made a payment of AU$10,000 to his victim. In August 2007, further allegations emerged that Houston had sexually abused a trainee pastor during counselling sessions in the early 1980s.”
Wikipedia

Keeping in mind of course that he had fathered 5 children and remained married to his wife until their deaths in their 80s.

Dear Steele,

Some aspects of human sexuality are still imperfectly
researched, partly because continuing social
inhibitions have hindered the accumulation of the
necessary information. However, researchers in
several disciplines now recognise that human sexual
behaviour is highly flexible so much so that we can
attach our erotic desires to almost anything -
human beings, animals, inanimate objects, such as
shoes or underwear, or even the experience of pain
and humiliation.

The fact that our sex drive is so flexible is, of course,
the reason every society goes to such lengths to regulate
it.

There are many cases of people who were forced to conform
initially to society's control - resisting their
sexual urges at first - Oscar Wilde comes to mind - who
married a woman and had children. Elton John - whose marriage
did not last long. More recently - our own Dr Phelps -
who married a man - and had children - and is now in a
lesbian relationship. And the list goes on.

SR. The fact that man sexually abused an adult male as well as boys, whilst married shows, as Foxy says, someone who will apparently have sex with anyone. Certainly there are men who will have sex with animals, dead bodies, inanimate objects etc.
There are some very sick and sad people in this world and I always wonder what happened to them in their childhood to make them behave this way.
As for women who claim to be lesbian, as Foxy pointed out, many have had heterosexual relations, as have many gay men, which just proves that most gay people are in fact bisexual.

Dear Big Nana,

My post was in response to your;

"I cannot imagine any heterosexual man being interested in a 17 year old boy, can you?"

No, but then I don't have a position of power within a Christian church and loudly proclaiming I have a message from God.

I think there is an issue with how that power corrupts and also how the most sinful or forbidden becomes the most titillating.

Yet you seem to give any of these nuances scant regard instead insisting on a black and white view of sexuality which I find problematic given the evidence.

I don't think that anyone of us completely knows
why someone might be gay, lesbian, straight or
bisexual. Research shows that sexual orientation
is likely to be caused by a combination of factors
and although sexual orientation is usually set
early in life, it isn't at all uncommon for desires
and attractions to shift throughout someone's life.

Also not everyone who has sexual feelings or attractions
to the same gender will act on them. Which shows that what
people feel or do is not always the same as how they
identify themselves.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality have both been
documented in many different cultures and historical eras.
Several decades of research and clinical experience has
found that there is an interplay of genetic, hormonal,
developmental, social and cultural influences at play
in the determination of sexual orientation - despite
the persistence of stereotypes that portray gays as
disturbed.

These research and clinical studies have led mainstream
medical and mental health organisations to conclude that
sexual orientations such as lesbian, gay, straight and
bisexual represent normal aspects of human sexuality.
These mainstream organisations long ago abandoned
classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

cont'd ...

I forgot to add that studies have corroborated that
homosexual people are substantially higher risk
for some form of emotional problems including
suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorders.
This could be due to the persistence of stereotypes
that portray gays as disturbed and not normal in
many societies and cultures.

Dear Foxy,

I feel an area very much under researched also is the role of deeply hierarchical, patriarchal, religious organisations in producing the relatively unfettered power discrepancies that seem to facilitate widespread corruption of behaviour toward the youngsters within the care of those institutions.

Unlike perhaps Big Nana an yourself I don't think Brian Huston would consider himself gay nor that he would be objectively homosexual. I think he has been corrupted by the power he has wielded over others and combined with a Paulian outlook toward sexuality has found access to 'forbidden fruit' too easy and has taken advantage of it.

Who can forget Ted Haggard who featured in Dawkins God Delusion documentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBC5L6cyq2Y

He ended up being exposed as having paid for sex from a male prostitute and purchased meth from him on numerous occasions over a three year period.

He claims he isn't a homosexual and I am inclined to believe him. I feel in his mind the attraction is once again 'the forbidden fruit' rather than straight forward same sex attraction.

What do you think?

Dear Steele,

You could be right - religious leaders are their
church's men, tied to their institutions through a whole
system of intimate interconnections, spiritual,
social, economic and professional. They do have
authority, leadership, and power. And their life-styles
in many cases can leave some of them seeking other
releases to the frustrations they surely face on a daily
basis. But I also think there's more involved than
just the issue of power and "forbidden fruit.

I feel sorry for some of the conditions in which"for example,
Catholic priests have to work. They have little or no life of
their own. They are financially and domestically tied
to the church through low wages and modest domestic
arrangements. They are on duty 24 hours a day, live on
the job in the presbytery and have to assume high levels of
responsibility for the lives of others.

They have to be jacks-of-all trades and of course
"the sacralisation of the priesthood also evokes an
idealisation of the clergy by the laity, placing huge
expectations on priests."

The result could well be burn out and extremely high levels
of stress. In some cases this could occasionally result in
the tragedy of priestly suicide.

I guess the point that I am trying to make is that because
of the lack of separation of their personal and professional
lives this can also result in the loss of personal
boundaries and the occurrences of what clerical
professional standards organisations call "boundary
violations." And of course we all blame the clergy when this
does happen. I'm not suggesting for one moment that any form
of sexual abuse should be accepted but -

Perhaps, we need to look more closely at all the causes that
bring on this abhorrent behavior. At
issues like celibacy, ordination
of women, et cetera - to try to solve the issues and problems that
force the attraction of
"forbidden fruit."

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

In my previous post I wrote :

« Our conscious mind is produced by our brain and allows us to be aware of our own existence as well as that of our environment. It can determine our thoughts and behaviour, but it does not have access to our unconscious mind which can influence it “surreptitiously”. »

I should have mentioned that the term “unconscious mind” refers to that part of the mind that, according to Freud, cannot be known by the conscious mind, and includes socially unacceptable ideas, wishes, desires and emotions, traumatic memories, etc., that have been repressed.

He, at first, employed the terms “subconscious mind” and “unconscious mind” interchangeably before later describing the former as accessible under certain favourable conditions – though not immediately and not without special effort – as they are just under the surface, as it were.

Whereas, he indicated that the unconscious mind stores the primal, instinctual thoughts, desires, emotions etc., which we cannot access under any circumstances.

He, nevertheless, considered that our overt behaviour may, involuntarily, give signs of the unconscious forces that drive them.

.

Dear Banjo,

Researchers have described the human sex drive
to the hunger drive. We all have an innate tendency
to feel hungry periodically, but we have to learn
through the socialisation process what we may eat and
what we may not eat, although different societies
teach rather different lessons in this regard.

Unlike the inhabitants of some societies, the
well-socialised Australian or American who
encounters a dog, rat, or spider does not for one
moment consider the creature as "food" : we have
what seems to be an "instinctive", but what is in
fact learned, aversion to the idea.

The way we come to follow our society's norms of sexual
conduct is similar. We start with a basic, undirected
drive and learn through the socialisation process to
recognise some stimuli as nonsexual, some as sexual and
appropriate, and some as potentially sexual but inappropriate
or even taboo.

The fact that our sex drive is so flexible is, of course,
the reason every society goes to such lengths to regulate it.
If we all behaved "instinctinvely" in a rigid and predictable
manner, there would be no need for the guidelines supplied
by powerful norms and taboos, and they would not exist.

To Foxy.

Though this is outside the scope of homosexuality, I think there is good reason for taboos and rigidity got several sexual behaviors. Though most aren't called sexuality, some are figured as fetishes, other are recognized as criminal and abusive in one way or another, while others are somewhere in between, not recognized as criminal by the law but breaks up families through cheating.

We can debate over what's fine and what isn't but a sexual appetite let wild is not a good thing. Taming it through at least some standards is a good thing. Again that is outside the scope of homosexuality and goes into criminal behaviors, or unhealthy fetishes.

Calling it something like hunger is a great comparison. It is. Sometimes dangerously so.

Dear NNS,

The most striking feature of sexuality in most
modern Western countries is the tension between
a tradition of highly restrictive standards,
on the one hand, and a climate that values
individuality and personal freedom, on the other.

Restrictive patterns of sexual behavior have long
been regarded as the cornerstone of public and
private morality, yet the pleasures of sexual
gratification are constantly extolled, implicitly
and explicitly, especially through the mass media.

Not surprisingly, the attempt to maintain the standards
of earlier generations is largely unsuccessful.

As a result, there is a discrepancy between the
sexuality that is portrayed in the ideal culture -
the norms and values a society adheres to in principle -
and the sexuality that is actually expressed in the
real culture - the norms and values a society adheres to
in practice.

The traditional sexual values of our society and of
modern Western society in general, have their roots
in a particular interpretation of ancient Judeo-
Christian morality. Sexual activity can have two
basic purposes: reproduction and pleasure.
The Western tradition has strongly emphasized the
former and has generally disapproved of the latter.

Sex was morally acceptable if the partners were
married and if their primary purpose was reproduction;
sex for pleasure alone, especially by unmarried
partners was considered immoral.

Anyway I shan't go into further details except to say
these traditional values remain powerful in our
country today, although attitudes vary greatly
according to age, sex, religion, place of residence,
and level of education.

To Foxy.

Standards of sex stay through the generations when it's punished by the law. And many of those laws are well worth keeping. Case in point, sex with minors should stay illegal for the safety of the minor. Doesn't matter if it's commited by a teacher, or a priest. Incest likewise should remain illegal. Again this goes outside the scope of homosexuality.

Things that are not illegal (as well as those that are) are exemplified by the porn industry. Worse to think about is that porn is scripted, but those acts whether it's rape, or a fetitish in costumes happen in real life too. It's not worth going into the topic of porn to say why several acts should remain unacceptable.

Going back to the issue with homosexuality there are issues. It's not about acceptance or not, there are extra issues. Even if homosexuality is accepted, there are things that need to be addressed that just plainly aren't. If it's not about emotional issues, suicide, drug dependance, (because the argument is these are solved through acceptance); then the issue is about health, long term relationship stability, and how homosexuals treat each other.

Heterosexual relationships have the issues of abuse, infidelity, and drug abuse, and for the most part people are encouraged to say away from these kinds of relationships. Either to get out of them or to get help. That kind of focus on potential problems just doesn't exist in homosexuality. There are real issues that just aren't getting noticed and for the sake of acceptance are fought against even speaking about.

Foxy,

Your second last post was, to say the least, confounding and contradictory.
Any mature, sane, serious society abhors today's morals and ethics.
It's easy to understand why.
THERE AREN'T ANY!
My wife was a virgin when I met her and until we were married.
I on the other hand had a very healthy sex life with any woman who "gave me permission", to pleasure her.
These women ranged in all aspects of life and backgrounds.
So there are too many factors at play, to try to categorise them.
It is believed that the male of any species is the aggressor and the female, the victim.
Well I can tell you that's BS.
If we must use the animal kingdom as example, (which I dis-agree with) then one has only to look at the ritual of some animals, mares, cows and so on, they perform a ritual called "presenting" when they are on heat and want to be, (for want of the more descriptive word) "inseminated".
So it is that there is no differing sex drive between the sexes.
The only difference is that the males are dictated to by the females as to when they can have sex with them.
This of course does not fit with the males sex drive which is by nature much higher than a females.
These days the promiscuity levels are the highest they've ever been and climbing, so it's no wonder we are having an increase in sex related crimes.
Still it's a good thing for the guys, because without the sluts, how would they learn about the beautiful joy of love-making.
And so some lucky wife gets the man she always wanted.
Well if you get rid of the sports, alcohol, the mates and a myriad of other distractions, she might, but looking at the males and females of today, Hmmmm, sorry, this generation really got the short end of both sticks.

Dear NNS,

Opinion polls today show substantial tolerance for
diversity in sexual behavior, but they also show
a continued commitment to marital fidelity and a
declining interest in promiscuity.

The epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases may
have played a part in this trend, but it also seems
that the sexual climate now calls for caring and
commitment rather than rebellion and experimentation.

The most important result of the preceding years
of change, perhaps, has been widespread acceptance of
newer concepts of sexual morality. Many people still
adhere to the stern rules of earlier generations, and
some seem not to believe in sexual morality at all.

But, increasingly judgements about right and wrong in
sexual matters are based on the attitude that moral
behavior is that which involves mutual affection
and respect and does no physical or psychological harm to
those involved.

As far as homosexuality is concerned? The new climate in
our society helps to neutralize earlier conceptions of
homosexuality as perverted or sinful, and today enables
gays and lesbians to build positive self-concepts.

The great majority of gay men tend to form long-lasting,
affectionate relationships, and lesbians seem to maintain
even more stable and enduring relationships than many
of their heterosexual counter parts do. Again the appearance
of AIDS may have influenced this attitude and encouraged many
gay people to revert to more traditional practices of
dating and settling down with a single partner.

Also the gay community's collective response to AIDS -
especially through support services it has provided for
gays, drug addicts, children, and others stricken by the
disease - has cemented its bonds in a way that promiscuous
sex never could.

See you on another discussion. For me this one has now run
its course.

Dear NNS,

You say there are issues of homosexuals that still need to be addressed.

Well try this for a statistic;

"Research shows a staggering 45% of women aged 18-41 were sexually abused as children by family members (30%), friends or family friends (50%) or strangers (14%). 75% of the abuse involved some contact, most of which was shockingly severe (Watson & Halford, 2010)."

Such a huge epidemic of abuse being carried out within the family home surely needs your attention. So incredibly pervasive is it that any perceived problems involving homosexual relationships must pale into relative insignificance.

Dear NNS,

I agree with Steele. There are issues that also
need to be addressed concerning family, domestic,
sexual violence in Australia. The statistics are
staggering. The following link explains:

http://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-in-australia-2018/contents/summary

Now that Foxy has left this topic, I feel safe to speak without the pontificating and sanctimonious regurgitation of information we already know about, yet choose to set it aside in the interest of what the real world is doing, saying and thinking, and not what little miss muffin seems to think it is.
I thought one of OLO's rules was not to repeat things ad-nauseam which is exactly what she has been doing for as long as I can remember.
Anyway, no matter how you see it, any form of sex other than that between a man and a woman, is not to be treated as the norm, just because there are certain creations that engage in it.
I wonder if anyone actually knows what the word "normal" means?
Not the normal that is conveniently twisted and used to justify something ab-normal.
Why some people keep flapping on about people who are born with ABNORMALITIES as is classified by the respective medical journals, are considered normal is beyond belief, and in doing so have themselves announced that they are also abnormal.
Do I need to mention the albino's, the dwarf's etc, etc, all over again?
No my name is not X, nor am I related to X.
So if we are to be honest with each other, the people who fall into this category are different.
They may not be different from others afflicted with the same disorder, but never-the-less, still not normal.
So let's not beat around the bush, just because we have some people with the emotions and intellect of a pre-pubescent, does not mean we don't have a brain of our own, which in this case, far outperforms the one's in question.

Darn it,

just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water, along comes the two metre white female, shark, even though she said she was moving on to cleaner waters.
Can't help herself, has to get the last word.

Oh, SR you want us to accept 10 year old research?
Is that all you could find to make your point?
Was all the other data not going to help you make your point and was in fact the opposite?
It's OK, we understand.
As soon as I come across something to help bolster your case I'll let you know, till then, keep looking.

Dear Foxy,

They are indeed staggering.

This is one that I found particularly confronting;

"Intimate partner violence causes more illness, disability and deaths than any other risk factor for women aged 25–44"

Dear Steele,

I remember the days when I worked for the
Department of Human Services in the City.
The Child Protection Services were just
down the hall. They were under-staffed,
poorly resourced, and their case-loads
were horrific. So many children fall through
the cracks. Their reports were piled up
in the hallway - anybody could read them.

Cases of child abuse - involving
acts like burning children with cigarettes,
locking them up in closets, tying them up for
hours or days, or breaking their bones -
was alarmingly common and probably causes
so many of the runaways that happen each year.

Tweedledum & Tweedledee,

I'm not sure how and why this thread has moved so far away from its original intent, from whether or not homosexuality has any genetic component to issues of domestic violence. I don't know what one has to do with the other. Can we get BTT ?

Joe

To Foxy.

You said:

"There are issues that also need to be addressed concerning family, domestic,
sexual violence in Australia. The statistics are staggering."

Start a topic about it. Or about child abuse in general with the degrees of cigarette burns and all.

The way I see it though, is that moving on to domestic family abuse when the topic is homosexuality, is like moving away from a topic of shoplifting because murder is worse. The issues of murder does not justify theft, and starting a topic about theft does not mean that a person condones murder. In the same way actually trying to breach the topic of homosexual problems does not mean I am ok with family violence. It's a worth while topic if you want to address it. Honestly I'd like to hear what people have to say on the matter either on how to better enforce the laws, catch domestic abuse and watch for the signs of abuse, people's experience on the matter, or anything else that is of value in the matter of domestic abuse, or that could help reduce it in our lives.

(continued)

(Continued)

I know homosexuality is a difficult topic to talk about. I've gathered that from the get go. So far both you and SteeleRedux have gone to great lengths to avoid the topic. My fault probably. I moved from homosexuality has no definitive genetic link, to the next logical conclusions. Environmental influences, and the issues placed on homosexuals can be put in our laps, our faults. Surely I could have approached the topic more delicately and avoided how abuse, suicide, and drug dependance exist at a greater rate among homosexual demographics. The topic of homosexuality should be one of acceptance right? With no focus on anything else? That's what we're allowed to talk about isn't it? Sorry but I think the other matters need to be addressed also. How can we say we are caring about homosexual people if we acknowledge that there is a higher rate of emotional issues, suicide, and abuse, but do nothing more then acknowledge this unfortunate figure.

Start a topic on domestic abuse. If many homosexuals were abused as children and that influences their sexuality, then a focus on domestic abuse is worth having a focused look. Start the topic for other reasons too. Because honestly this affects what ... 30% of all women?

To ALTRAV.

You usually have something outside of the usual facts and figures that are pushed around on any issue. With that in mind, what are your thoughts on homosexual culture, or if there is such a thing. There is definitely a homosexual agenda, but doesn't automatically mean anything about a culture of it's own outside of political power plays. In the last year or so I met a guy who's trying to recover from several life issues and decisions in life. He's pointed out something I was not aware of. Homosexuality is very negative environment to be in. He said it is full of narcissism, usually focuses way too much on materialism and sex, as well as that there is an excess amount of illicit drugs and alcohol in the mix. The way he puts it is that homosexuality is a very negative influence to be in and one of his best decisions was to try and be celibate and walk away from it all.

This raised an issue I hadn't heard or considered before. That A). homosexuality had it's own culture, and B). that it is over all a negative and harmful culture for those in it.

Have you come across anything of this sort. The topic of homosexual influence towards other homosexuals? Or basically the culture within homosexuality?

To Loudmouth.

What do you think on the matter of homosexuality being genetic or not? Do you think the study at the start of this topic has merit? Or if it's a mishmash of data that leads to the wrong conclusions?

Honestly I don't know how they can do any better to study the relationships between genes and homosexuality without a survey attached to self identify who is homosexual and who isn't. But I also think questionnaires can be misleading and aren't the most reliable source of information. On the other hand there's a lot of people pulled for this study. Which makes it very good source of information to draw trends from and see correlations. If they can't find any definitive gay gene, Does that debunk a previous study claiming to have found the gay gene? (As well as raise doubt on the genetic influence as a whole?)

Sorry the topic went so far from the origional post. That's my fault for going down the next step in the conversation before really getting into the matter of the study itself.

Dear Loudmouth and NNS,

Settle down young fellas, the debate hasn't shifted at all, it has evolved and matured.

We are now seeking answers as to why this topic exercises the minds of people like NNS when it is obvious from the statistics that there is something very amiss with the avowedly heterosexual cohort and it is causing so much misery and harm to such a huge section of our adolescents.

I had even framed it in a biblical context if that would help;

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
...
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It is perfectly justifiable to look at what might be regarded as the beast within so many and accept that there is a sizable proportion of the human race who, given certain circumstances, will let the beast grow and escape to do damage.

Statistics say that female children under the same roof with a single parent and a live in partner are 20 times more at risk of sexual and physical abuse from that partner that living with both their biological parents.

Why is that? Obviously proximity plays a role, normal instinctual barriers against being attracted to one's own offspring are no longer at play, and less capacity to see the victim as a complete human being having not watched them grow.

But for 30% of our young girls to have experienced sexual abuse within the safety of their own homes whether be family or be friends of the family seems to indicate a capacity for abuse which exists in every section across the sexual spectrum. To highlight just that of the homosexual community is not facing this very important issue.

This surely should be where this conversation has landed.

Why the resistance to go there?

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« Researchers have described the human sex drive to the hunger drive … The fact that our sex drive is so flexible is, of course, the reason every society goes to such lengths to regulate it »
.

I believe you’re right in thinking that hunger and sex-drive are the motor, and food and copulating the fuel, that propel humanity towards its destiny.

But, as I indicated in my very first post on this thread (page 4) :

« So far as we human beings are concerned, the role of the State should be limited to the public – not the private – sphere, as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights » :

« Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life :

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others »

This means that consenting adults are free to practise whatever form of sexual relationship they please, in private – and that includes homosexual union :

« Article 8 clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches, but the Court has given the protection for "private and family life" that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article.

The following court cases deal with the applicability of Article 8 to issues related to LGBT people including the recognition of same-sex marriage, laws prohibiting sodomy, and access to health services for transgender people.

.

(Continued …)

.

(Continued …)

.

« Modinos v. Cyprus (1993) – Ruling invalidating Section 171 of the Criminal Code of Cyprus under which male homosexual acts were banned, finding that there had been a breach under Article 8 of the applicant's right to respect for private life.

Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493 – The investigation into and subsequent discharge of personnel from the Royal Navy on the basis of sexual orientation was a breach of the right to a private life under Article 8.

Van Kück v. Germany (2003) ECHR 285 – Inadequate access to a fair hearing in a case involving reimbursement by a private medical insurer for costs of hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery by a transsexual woman, where undue burden had been placed upon her to prove the medical necessity of the treatment, was a violation under Article 8 and Article 6 § 1.

Oliari and Others v Italy (2015) – Italy violated Article 8 by not providing legal recognition to same-sex couples » :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

.

To SteeleRedux.

If domestic abuse is what you want to discuss, then just as I said to Foxy, I highly recommend you to start that topic. I agree that it is worth seeking solutions to. However this topic is still worth working out as well. Instead of trying to dodge the subject like a redo clown trying to dodge a bull, perhaps actually talking about the issues? There are several.

Personally I don't like to see a few of my coworkers attach so much of their identity to finding someone to date. Nor in that they are fine with dating someone 8-10 years younger then them. Barely legal or walking the fence for legal trouble because they can't find another homosexual to date. One issue with homosexuality is that there aren't plenty of fish in the sea, and that our culture pins so much importance on relationships. It would be healthier to stay single and find peace with it, instead of going from one bad date to another desperate for a relationship, or perhaps just desperate for a fun time and let it go when their done . (Don't know his intention but he seems to never have a satisfying date with anyone and he's getting depressed more often that can be seen at work.

I don't like hearing that another coworker recently got married only to also say that it is an open relationship. That isn't stable. Especially if they say they want kids to adopt some day, (she said they do want to raise a kid). Why would homosexual marriage be fought for and sought, only to throw it away by making it an "open relationship."

Are these issues not worth talking about. Is the demographic that is plagued with these kinds of issues not worth talking about? Or is it just not allowed to talk openly about these problems because it's inconvenient to your politics?

Dear NNS,

These are some of your quotes through this discussion.

“Maybe see if we can "fix" society and actually have compassion on homosexuals, instead of trying to have tolerance on an unhealthy compulsion that they have little choice about.”

“Regardless of being normal or not, there are huge hurdles if a person actually looks at homosexuality. Drug use and alcoholism are at a higher rate then the rest of society. By encouraging kids and adults to be actively gay it encourages them to be part of that culture. Same with a higher rate of narcissism, open relationships and just loose pants in general harming strong foundations in long term relationships, as well as issues with pedophilia. Higher rates of Depression, anxiety, and suicide.”

“As for absence and celibacy. I don't think those cause as many issues as an actively gay life will cause. In fact an unfortunate issue is pedophilia in gay communities.”

I have raised the issue of rampant paedophilia occurring in family homes by heterosexuals. Its toll is extensive. I am comparing it to your fixation on the perceived sins of homosexuals. If you accept the pervasiveness of this trend within our Western societies, something that is at markedly lower levels within far eastern non-Christian societies, then not to take it into account when we are discussing the shortcomings of some in the gay community would be surely disingenuous.

This is where the conversation has led us. You insisting it return to for you a 'safer' more 'comfortable' footing and keeping it to bashing gays is hardly going to fly is it.

I think the door is wide open to discuss the role of toxic masculinity and rigid hierarchical structures within Christian institutions in the issue of paedophilia levels in our society as part of our exploration of the topic.

Why don't you?

N.N.S.

I thank you for your acknowledgement of my differing approach to the normal conversation.
Alas I have exhausted my thoughts on this topic and if I do not comment on posts, it's more than likely, that I agree with the them or the direction it is heading.
As you know, I will only comment when an untruth or similar is put out in an attempt to win a point, if only on the back of a lie.
Look, the problems, I believe, the queers experience is by and large to do with being different, we know that.
Because of this "difference", straight guys shy away from them.
Not all, only the ones the queer might find worthy of friendship.
So it is they are alienated by the male fraternity, even though it is not immediately visible in public.
The women however, happily gravitate towards queers, maybe because they don't feel threatened by the continual attempts at getting "chatted up", by them.
As far as the alienation between the queers, I wonder if there is an element of reservation, wondering how serious the other party is about this union.
There is too much evidence of dis-array amongst the queers.
One only has to look to the history of queers in Massachusetts, USA, to read about the daily disasters of the interactions of queers.
And these are from police records.
There is nothing new about all the problems they have.
I believe they know they are different, and that's why the "equality" campaign.
I say again, that this SSM thing will change nothing, until the queers accept that they are different, and that the majority of the population are NOT comfortable with them, especially when they are forced to watch what is an abnormal, and to some, a sick and un-acceptable lifestyle.
I have a friend who does not seem to partake in the pleasures of the opposite sex, he's not queer, just never seems to have bothered with women.
So it is, if sex is your thing, then masturbation is your friend.
I know, it's the default setting.

SR,

N.N.S. has a valid point, it is you who refuse to accept that the queers are not as acceptable as you would like us to believe.
You can't go around forcing people to accept something they don't like or want.
You, not them, need to back off with your narrow view of society as if WE are the problem.
Ever hear the one about the witch-doctor having put a potion in the local well from where the people drew their water, won the favour of the people, who all went quite mad, and began to turn on the king. The king, at the risk of death, decided to drink from the well himself, as he had his own private well to stop any attempts on his life.
He also went mad, and they all lived happily ever after.

Dear NNS,

We all started out in discussing the "gay gene"however
as sexuality is a significant ingredient of individual
personality, sexual relationships have an even
greater importance in the broader societal context and
thus the discussion broadened out to include sexuality
and society, the nature of human sexuality, sexual
conduct, sexual behavior in our society, traditional
values, sexually transmitted diseases, again, the social
context, learning sexual orientation, and finally
sexual and other forms of abuse.

I have found this discussion very interesting and
have appreciated the variety of mature, intelligent,
views expressed. That is one of the things
that attracts many people to this forum - the ability
to hear from a diversity of people who do make reasoned,
intelligent arguments.

As I stated on page 26, for me this discussion has now
run its course. I appreciate your raising this
topic for discussion. I am glad that it did broaden
out as it has. When discussions do that - we can all
learn more than we had anticipated at first. Sticking
strictly to the topic often produces very narrow, rigid, and
limited voices.

I look forward to our next topic. May it be equally robust.

Dear Banjo P.,

Thank You for taking the time to respond to me.
However for me this discussion has now run
its course. I have always believed that a
person's religion as well as their sexual
orientation is a personal and private matter
as long as it does no physical or psychological harm
to those involved.

I always read your posts and learn so much from them.

You and a few others are the reasons I continue to
stay on this forum.

Warmest Regards.

Well I don't know about anyone else but after the last two entries, I can feel myself getting nauseous again.
It usually happens when someone keeps sucking up to others, and keep repeating the obvious to the point of.....you guessed it, ad-nauseam!
A simple and short acknowledgement will suffice, not some prolonged drivel, which adds absolutely no valid content to the discussion in question.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You ask :

« 'No gay gene.' Does new study have faults or hold merit ? »
.

Gene or no gene, what does it matter ?

Never mind !

What is mind ?

No matter !

What is the soul ?

That is immaterial !

If you don’t agree with that, Not_Now.Soon, I don’t mind.

Mind you, you may be right, and I may be wrong, but that’s another matter.

I guess it’s just a question of mind over matter.

As matter of fact, I think it’s all in the mind !

What’s the matter with that ?

For God’s sake, whatever you do, Not_Now.Soon, don’t change your mind :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUN1901jJxU

.

.

To SteeleRedux.

First point:

If you wish to talk about abuse in heterosexual relationships then a question before going there. What good will that focus do for homosexuals? Straight relationships aren't going to effect a homosexual, unless they are a family member in an abusive heterosexual relationship. In fact focusing on heterosexual issues can only solve heterosexual issues. There are different dynamics in straight couples and gay couples. One of the easiest dynamics to see is the lack of options for finding a better mate in homosexual relationships. Really cuts the options of leaving for being treated poorly and seeking someone who meets your standards.

Second point:

By pointing out issues to watch for in straight relationships, would that count as straight bashing? Or just being aware? Why the double standard for avoiding the issues in homosexuality? Problems in heterosexual relationships are worth looking at, knowing enough to not get involved sketchy relationships, and seeking justice when people are abused. That does not mean that problems in homosexual relationships should be ignored, because of abuse in straight couples.

Third point:

I posted this Sunday September 15 at 9:17pm. Reread it, and then reread any of my other posts to see if I have ever been part of gay bashing. In the future don't slander a person who is actually trying to help, while you are too eager to change the subject matter, and silence matters that are inconvenient to your philosophy or to your politics.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Originally posted September 15 at 9:17pm
_____________________________________________________________

If there's a gay gene, then homosexuality can be passed off as natural, normal, or at least conveniently something no one has a choice about and should be tolerated and accepted.

If there is no gay gene that changes the things quite a bit. Then all of the sudden the issue of being gay and having the issues that are part of that are no longer just passed off as "just born that way." The issues you see and hear but don't focus on, don't have to be accepted as if this is just how it is. Heterosexuality is not full of saints and healthy relationships, however the rate of unhealthy sexual practices, unhealthy relationships, and issues with depression, drugs, and alcoholism are so high among the homosexual population that this should not go unnoticed. Especially if one of the common stories among gays is that they wouldn't choose to be gay if they had a choice, and that they've tried to be straight.

No, if genetics is not to blame then either A) homosexuality is a choice. (Too many homosexuals tried to choose not being gay and fail for this to be the case). Or B) there is environmental forces at play. Basically that we as a society have forced this lifestyle on some people because of the harms we allow to have their negative influence have influenced homosexuals to be gay without their choosing.

On the other hand if there are genetic influences as well as environmental influences, then the issue of society influencing people to be gay is still bad enough to try and identify the non-genetic influences. Maybe see if we can "fix" society and actually have compassion on homosexuals, instead of trying to have tolerance on an unhealthy compulsion that they have little choice about. (Celibacy is still an option regardless if a person is gay or not. To many unhealthy relationships exist because of people think it's better to be in a bad relationship then it is to be in no relationship)
__________________________________________________________

I try to look at situations based on facts, not emotions. The issue of homosexuality has always been based on emotional responses, both for and against.
One of the most frequent supporting arguments is that because some animals engage in homosexual behaviour, then of course it is natural. That argument falls apart if we consider that no, these animals are bisexual, and that animals also engage in pedophilia, gang rape, and incest. Surely no one is suggesting we should accept this behaviour because animals do it. Homosexuality was once regarded with the same feeling of repugnance that incest is still regarded, yet no one can give me any logical reason why consenting adults should not engage in an incestuous relationship, their response is always based on emotion.
But the defining factor for me is the biological aspect of sodomy. 40 years of nursing taught me that the human body is a miracle of design, that every single unit in the body, down to a single cell, is designed for a specific purpose, and that all systems work together to keep the body healthy whenever possible. Sodomy does not fit into these systems, in any way. The body was never designed for this activity, in fact it is actually harmful, and cannot be performed painlessly without external aids. This tells me that sodomy is not a natural act that the body was designed for and whilst I have no problem accepting that it exists and treating gays with respect, I can never see this as something people were born with or a natural act.
I’m far more convinced that environmental factors factor strongly in this behaviour.

Big Nana,

thank you, finally a clear and educated pragmatic and reasoned explanation which clarifies further the arguments about whether queers are 'normal' or not.
I am glad you clarified the distinction between the humans and the animals, because the original analogy being pushed by the 'fore' camp, did not sit well with me.
And as a rule, if something does not sit well, then it is not fully accepted and only gives rise to more questions, so.
Thank you.

To ALTRAV.

I don't think whether it's normal or not should be the basis for judging if homosexuality is good or bad. But regardless of not being normal, I don't think it is healthy. For other reasons I think homosexuality should be rejected. And to those who say they have no choice it's who they are. They still have the choice to be actively gay or to stay single. Just my thoughts.

To Big Nana.

Well said. Being respectful of others choices doesn't mean those are good choices. It just means you let them make their own bed to lie in.

.

Dear Big Nana,

.

You wrote :

« … no one can give me any logical reason why consenting adults should not engage in an incestuous relationship, their response is always based on emotion »
.

My life experience prompts me to pick up the gauntlet, Big Nana.

The legal and biological definitions of incest are different. Biologically speaking, incest refers to intimate relationships between first-degree blood relatives. An example of consanguinity and biological incest includes sexual intercourse between a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

In Australia, the laws vary depending on the state, but essentially the rule is that a sexual relationship between an ancestor and a descendant, or between siblings - including half-siblings, and including familial links by adoption - are illegal. The penalties vary from a maximum imprisonment of 8 years (NSW) to life imprisonment (Qld).

But there are many cultures, worldwide, that not only accept incestuous relationships, but encourage and celebrate them. Incestuous relationships are particularly common in places like Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. In fact, there are some areas in the world where between 20 and 60 percent of married persons, are married to a close biological relative.

Cultures that encourage the practice believe that a higher level of compatibility exists between husbands and wives who are related to each other. They also believe that a higher compatibility exists between the couple and other members of their immediate family.

Where consanguineous marriages are accepted, couples may be concerned about the genetic risks of having children. They are encouraged to seek both preconception and premarital counselling, so that they can make an informed decision.

However, incest is discouraged in many countries and cultures essentially because the closer the biological relationship, the higher the risk of genetic disorders in offspring, such as severe birth defects, or even the death of the child. First-degree relatives have about a 30% risk of bearing a child that either has severe birth defects or is stillborn. The risk drops to about 2% to 3% for third-degree relatives (first cousins).

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

In Australia, the most common form of incest is parental child sexual abuse, committed more often by the father than the mother (though sometimes with her complicity) and more often on girls than on boys.

This is probably due to the fact that the libido is a convenient outlet for internal tensions and emotions such as stress, frustration, anxiety, powerlessness, compulsion, lust and various forms of paranoia.

Grooming their children to satisfy their own lustful desires is an abuse of parental power, authority and influence. It often results in serious and long-term psychological trauma. Its prevalence is difficult to generalize, but research has estimated 10–15% of the general population as having at least one such sexual contact, with less than 2% involving intercourse or attempted intercourse.

A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding among first cousins of 4.4%. Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions. Studies suggest that 20-36% of these children will die or have major disability due to the inbreeding. A study of 29 offspring resulting from brother-sister or father-daughter incest found that 20 had congenital abnormalities, including four directly attributable to autosomal recessive alleles (a pattern of inheritance resulting from the transmission of a genetic abnormality).

.

.

Dear Big Nana,

.

The subject of “consenting adults engaging in an incestuous relationship” reminds me of a book I read some years ago (in French), of which the original title was “The last of the Nomads” by W.J.Peasley, published in 1983 by Freemantle Arts Centre Press, in Western Australia.

It’s the story of an Aboriginal couple, Warri Kyangu and his wife, Yatungka, both of the Mandildjara tribe. The tribe was composed of four clans, Yiparka, Djararu, Burungu and Milanjga. For marriage purposes, the four clans were divided into two halves : Yiparka/Burungu and Djararu/Milanjga.

Warri was born a Yiparka and should have married a Djararu or, failing that, Milanjga. But Yatungka was born a Burungu, which was the clan of Warri’s mother, and the same half as Warri himself.

There was no way the elders would ever allow such an incestuous union.

As the couple truly loved each other, they decided to escape together into the Gibson desert in central Western Australia, near the Tropic of Capricorn where they lived a traditional hunter-gatherer life for about thirty years, despite one of the worst droughts in history.

It is because of the drought that the author and one of the couple’s Aboriginal friends set out to find them and offer them a safe haven with the remainder of their tribe which had long since integrated Western society in Wiluna.

There are a couple of photos of the two fugitives in the book and they look like walking skeletons. They accepted to be transported back to their tribe in Wiluna but after a few months, Warri fell ill and died on 28 April 1979. Yatungka immediately plunged into a deep depression and died less than one month later, on 23 Mai 1979.

It is a true story. A story of a unique, outcast couple who, as the book title suggests, was possibly the last traditional Aboriginal nomad couple in Australia.

To me, it is one of the greatest and – dare I say – purist love stories I have ever read.

It is a story of an incestuous relationship.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for telling us about the book,
"The Last of the Nomads."

Readings book shop is out of stock - but they
will get it in for me. I've placed an order for it.

I'm looking forward to reading it.