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.