10th February 2004, 8:50 PM
Damn it, I hate it when arm chair scientists, or liberal journalists think they can take a couple of examples and work up a storm for reasons why homosexuality is somehow normal and natural. I guess its one of the hallmarks of being a liberal, you have to believe that homosexuality is somehow natural but heterosexuality is not.
Being a scientist with an actual degree and pursuing post graduate higher education in the sciences, I'd like to bring out the fact that homosexuality is time and time again shown to be strongly correlated and in bolder statements from psychiatrists and DSM IV criteria... to be a cause of behavioral gender identity problems. Homosexuality its strongly correlated to children being raised in conditions where their gender role is not clearly defined, or they are raised in such a way that they associate themselves with members of the opposite sex. Hence when they grow up, seeing themselves as a member of the opposite sex in childhood, they become aggrevated to fit into their gender role, at which point they will take a number of paths to conceal, accept, or overcome and reform themselves or any combination of the above.
It should be carefully noted that in many of these gender identity problems seen in animals reflects a VERY SMALL numbers. I can't recall the actual numbers, but the stats themselves will tell you that it reflects an insignificant portion of the population. In fact, technically, homosexual animals aren't even part of the population because by definition, you have to be heterosexual and reproducing to be a member of a population. You should do yourself a favor and say screw the press, read the actual articles written by the researchers themselves. Maybe get some education in actual biostatistics and see if the researchers had valid experiments to start with. Media is liberal, and all people are biased, they'll take anything and turn it into their own propaganda.
In otherwords, theres ANECTODAL EVIDENCE that homosexuality occurs in animals, which I'm sure is true, but then those animals would be as outstanding and abnormal as gay men and women, who also represent a small portion of the human population overall. Yeah, admittedly it happens in the natural world, but realistically, its called statistical outliers, and in biostatistics, these are the samples we say are outstanding and not normally representative of the entire population sample. People within + or - 2 standard deviations of the mean are considered to be people in the norm.
However, the sociological impact is still significant. It is like saying that just because there are only a few people of the population who get Down's Syndrome that we can ignore them and let them do whatever they want and fend for themselves. No... the implications are great. I am no believer of any god or gods and my moral rules are derived from the profound rationale of cause and effect. Allowing homosexualism to take place is to grant sexual freedoms that threaten the traditional family. In any society, it is unarguably true that good families breed good people, good people make a nation strong, peaceful and life is enjoyable. When you go down the first step of allowing something that is biologically "outstanding" and "abnormal" is to open up the pathway for something more threatening and more prevalent to the traditional family, and that is opening sexual freedom to heterosexuals. It would be unfair to grant it to gays and not to "normal" people. Promiscuity, casual pre marital and extra marital sex and all its forms cheapens the meaning of exclusive dedication, loyalty, companionship, and intimacy that are key to a marraige, and hence is a direct threat to the traditional familial monogamy and premarital chastity that humanity has embraced that made ancient humans raise their children with the same high yeild success that birds do (unlike mammals), hence making us the dominant species in combination with our tool making ability. Had birds known how to make tools, Chozo like people would have risen up to dominate earth far before humans. Now don't take this extraordinary rise to be an argument for statistical favors to the other extraordinary end of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an evoluationary dead end, it doesn't raise children or make them in the first place. Likewise, broken families, single parent families (like that of all OTHER mammal species), people indulged in promisuous behavior... they are selected against because they take on all the extra risks of destroying their young. (NOTE: Biologically, birds are the most successful at raising offspring, using a family system, and life time mating in 93% of bird species, much more successful than the mammal species which are promiscuous and have single parenting... not to mention males kill offsprings so they can mate with a female)
And a nation that is fraught with this kind of behavior is a nation that is also selected against. If you have not noticed, America's medical costs, taxations, social systems are heavily monetarily burdened because there are all the problems that did not exist before the sexual revolution and various excesses of the 60s that is now built into popular American mindset. The idea is, if the people don't have problems, then government doesn't have to address them. When the people create problems for themselves, and governments let it happen, eventually it causes problems that a "dutiful" government has to address. The government is only burdened because it failed to put a hamper on the 60's, is still ambiguous about its position on sexual freedom, and continues to undermine its traditional family by not protecting, promoting, and making itself clear on the matter, not to mention other things.... imagine that, a nation that allows parents to kill their own unborn children. If thats not evolutionarily being selected against, I don't know what is.
So why is it all morally wrong again ? Because its a behavior, and an extraordinary one, and one that opens up the path for the sexual freedom that threatens humanity, not only evolutionarily, but NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE CAN ARGUE WITH ME THAT CHEAPENING THE MEANING OF MARRAIGE, BREAKING FAMILES APART, etc is desirable. It brings social suffering and burdens to all of society. No creature enjoys suffering, but ironically deviant behavior that are selfishly satisfying in the short term brings long term suffering to everyone else and must be corrected for the good of society, just like we strive to correct alcoholism, drug abuse, etc.
Other notes I should make from human genetics. There is no such thing as the gay gene. And the bullshit about it not being found yet, is bullshit, because if its not found, it doesn't mean anything. Genetics are an outlet for everything in the media these days. Its ridiculous, if humans are all about genetics, then America should ditch all its equality rules because people are definitely born unequal. There will be people who are genetically superior and their genes will have superior behaviors that make them successful, while genetically inferior people will have crappy behaviors like alcoholism, criminalism, etc. and should be pre-emptively put in jail because their crime has "already" been comitted. Besides, the mathematics of genetics, like that of many fatal and evolutionary deselected genetic diseases (ie ones that don't let you reproduce) are doomed to die out. Homosexuality would have been wiped out in the promordial soup ancestors in protista and such, long before life even went ashore damn it. Hell, even bacteria have male and female genders in ones that have sexual reproduction. Think about it, diescious (2 gender species) species arose first in bacteria for reason.
Being a scientist with an actual degree and pursuing post graduate higher education in the sciences, I'd like to bring out the fact that homosexuality is time and time again shown to be strongly correlated and in bolder statements from psychiatrists and DSM IV criteria... to be a cause of behavioral gender identity problems. Homosexuality its strongly correlated to children being raised in conditions where their gender role is not clearly defined, or they are raised in such a way that they associate themselves with members of the opposite sex. Hence when they grow up, seeing themselves as a member of the opposite sex in childhood, they become aggrevated to fit into their gender role, at which point they will take a number of paths to conceal, accept, or overcome and reform themselves or any combination of the above.
It should be carefully noted that in many of these gender identity problems seen in animals reflects a VERY SMALL numbers. I can't recall the actual numbers, but the stats themselves will tell you that it reflects an insignificant portion of the population. In fact, technically, homosexual animals aren't even part of the population because by definition, you have to be heterosexual and reproducing to be a member of a population. You should do yourself a favor and say screw the press, read the actual articles written by the researchers themselves. Maybe get some education in actual biostatistics and see if the researchers had valid experiments to start with. Media is liberal, and all people are biased, they'll take anything and turn it into their own propaganda.
In otherwords, theres ANECTODAL EVIDENCE that homosexuality occurs in animals, which I'm sure is true, but then those animals would be as outstanding and abnormal as gay men and women, who also represent a small portion of the human population overall. Yeah, admittedly it happens in the natural world, but realistically, its called statistical outliers, and in biostatistics, these are the samples we say are outstanding and not normally representative of the entire population sample. People within + or - 2 standard deviations of the mean are considered to be people in the norm.
However, the sociological impact is still significant. It is like saying that just because there are only a few people of the population who get Down's Syndrome that we can ignore them and let them do whatever they want and fend for themselves. No... the implications are great. I am no believer of any god or gods and my moral rules are derived from the profound rationale of cause and effect. Allowing homosexualism to take place is to grant sexual freedoms that threaten the traditional family. In any society, it is unarguably true that good families breed good people, good people make a nation strong, peaceful and life is enjoyable. When you go down the first step of allowing something that is biologically "outstanding" and "abnormal" is to open up the pathway for something more threatening and more prevalent to the traditional family, and that is opening sexual freedom to heterosexuals. It would be unfair to grant it to gays and not to "normal" people. Promiscuity, casual pre marital and extra marital sex and all its forms cheapens the meaning of exclusive dedication, loyalty, companionship, and intimacy that are key to a marraige, and hence is a direct threat to the traditional familial monogamy and premarital chastity that humanity has embraced that made ancient humans raise their children with the same high yeild success that birds do (unlike mammals), hence making us the dominant species in combination with our tool making ability. Had birds known how to make tools, Chozo like people would have risen up to dominate earth far before humans. Now don't take this extraordinary rise to be an argument for statistical favors to the other extraordinary end of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an evoluationary dead end, it doesn't raise children or make them in the first place. Likewise, broken families, single parent families (like that of all OTHER mammal species), people indulged in promisuous behavior... they are selected against because they take on all the extra risks of destroying their young. (NOTE: Biologically, birds are the most successful at raising offspring, using a family system, and life time mating in 93% of bird species, much more successful than the mammal species which are promiscuous and have single parenting... not to mention males kill offsprings so they can mate with a female)
And a nation that is fraught with this kind of behavior is a nation that is also selected against. If you have not noticed, America's medical costs, taxations, social systems are heavily monetarily burdened because there are all the problems that did not exist before the sexual revolution and various excesses of the 60s that is now built into popular American mindset. The idea is, if the people don't have problems, then government doesn't have to address them. When the people create problems for themselves, and governments let it happen, eventually it causes problems that a "dutiful" government has to address. The government is only burdened because it failed to put a hamper on the 60's, is still ambiguous about its position on sexual freedom, and continues to undermine its traditional family by not protecting, promoting, and making itself clear on the matter, not to mention other things.... imagine that, a nation that allows parents to kill their own unborn children. If thats not evolutionarily being selected against, I don't know what is.
So why is it all morally wrong again ? Because its a behavior, and an extraordinary one, and one that opens up the path for the sexual freedom that threatens humanity, not only evolutionarily, but NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE CAN ARGUE WITH ME THAT CHEAPENING THE MEANING OF MARRAIGE, BREAKING FAMILES APART, etc is desirable. It brings social suffering and burdens to all of society. No creature enjoys suffering, but ironically deviant behavior that are selfishly satisfying in the short term brings long term suffering to everyone else and must be corrected for the good of society, just like we strive to correct alcoholism, drug abuse, etc.
Other notes I should make from human genetics. There is no such thing as the gay gene. And the bullshit about it not being found yet, is bullshit, because if its not found, it doesn't mean anything. Genetics are an outlet for everything in the media these days. Its ridiculous, if humans are all about genetics, then America should ditch all its equality rules because people are definitely born unequal. There will be people who are genetically superior and their genes will have superior behaviors that make them successful, while genetically inferior people will have crappy behaviors like alcoholism, criminalism, etc. and should be pre-emptively put in jail because their crime has "already" been comitted. Besides, the mathematics of genetics, like that of many fatal and evolutionary deselected genetic diseases (ie ones that don't let you reproduce) are doomed to die out. Homosexuality would have been wiped out in the promordial soup ancestors in protista and such, long before life even went ashore damn it. Hell, even bacteria have male and female genders in ones that have sexual reproduction. Think about it, diescious (2 gender species) species arose first in bacteria for reason.