Okay goys, this is my last post on this forum for a while. I am swamped with things to do, and cricket is too much of a time sink right now to carry on with and this forum is too easy to write long form on . Hopefully it’s not too long, but I have to get these works done! (neither do I have the time to address the various alternative histories/alternative facts that fly in my face on this forum)
Anyway, since it was requested that I respond to this post a while ago, and, because I won’t be posting for a while, I will make sure to make this one as long (and provocative) as possible.
I thought my post was pretty clear. If people aren’t able to understand what I wrote or were triggered by it, it is hardly my problem… Plus, ambiguity is fun! Now I can argue against the what the other posters say, just for the lulz.
Hopefully some more normies get triggered by my posts and start quivering with rage while making passive aggressive posts.
However, if anyone really wants to know what I truly think about this issue can read the spoiler
With that being said...
Since you are asking me to address the other poster’s entire post, but that other poster didn’t mention me directly or ask me for my opinion, I won’t address him directly. He is free to write whatever he wants and express his opinion, and it is not my job, nor is it my interest, to argue with him.
Therefore, I will rephrase parts of the post as ideas, rather than statements made by the other poster, to address. I will also be addressing you in this post rather than the other poster. This is better than addressing someone who didn’t ask me for my opinion.
Without further ado:
The first part of the post seems like it is forwarding the notion that people are afraid of homosexuals, ie homophobia. I don't really buy that: homophobia is a misnomer (just like the phrase Islamophobia)(lol @ green mogambo aka @Green Monster ).
By definition a phobia is
An actual phobia, like social phobia, affects the ability of an individual to function normally, ie someone with social phobia essentially will have social anxiety and even panic attacks in large social gatherings. In some cases, people afflicted with such a phobia will even avoid leaving their homes, going to stores, talking with other people, etc. Similar events happen with other such phobias.
I am not aware of any people who lose their ability to function normally by seeing/being around homosexuals.
Basically, this concept alleges people are irrationally afraid of homosexuals. I don't find that the case:
1) Do people really fear homosexuals?
From my experience, people who are against what are considered "gay rights" seem to usually either: be disgusted by homosexuals, want homosexuality to be kept "in the closet", or outright hate the homosexuals. None of those fit with the idea of a phobia.
I think this situation calls for neologism , so a better word would be something along the lines of mis-homosexuality/ism?(I am not very good at this subject ).
2) Is it irrational to dislike homosexuals?
I don't think it's anymore irrational to dislike someone for their sexuality than it is to blindly love them for their sexuality. Both love and hate are essentially emotions, and therefore, both can be said to be irrational. One can't be considered rational while the other irrational...
Again, is it really irrational to dislike homosexuals? What if people have their reasons to dislike them? Will the homophiles acknowledge the other people's concerns and address them one by one, or will they just start virtue-signalling and sloganeering. From my experience, it is usually the latter. Even in the other thread on homosexuality, one can see the level of "debate" being had: phrases along the lines of: OMG you don't know anything, you're an idiot, how can you be so wrong about everything, etc, etc. That kind of gutter tripe is supposed to be considered "rational" pro-homosexuality arguments which can convince someone with an alternate or neutral viewpoint to one's pro-homosexuality side? Spare me!
Then we get to the idea of whether people are justified in disliking homosexuality and why it could be rational, but I will address this part later in this post (stay tuned ).
I don't buy this idea totally either. People are free to have their own perspective on this issue, but it is hardly a black and white. Both words have become loaded words in the current political climate.
Suppose this scenario occurred:
A person is a 5 foot 2, 110 pound Chinese male wearing a Rolex wristwatch. At midnight, he decides to take a shortcut to get to his car and is walking in a back alley in downtown Baltimore (since you are a The Wire fan @Stradlater ). There he sees a 6 foot 8, 240 pound Black male loitering suspiciously in the shadows. The Chinese male turns around and walks the other way.
Is he really wrong to be afraid and turn around? I don't think so, here is why: a brain's job is to process information and make the best decision to keep oneself alive! Its job isn't to kowtow to politically correct dogma and make decisions which won't offend another person. One's brain processes information based on stereotypes and discriminates between information to find what is relevant and then make an appropriate decision.
Here are some facts:
1) Black males disproportionately commit violent crimes
2) Males are disproportionately the victims of violent crimes
3) Violent crimes against males result in physical injury and often death
4) Many crimes are easier to commit in sparsely populated areas
5) Crime disproportionately occurs at night
6) In general, the size of a male is correlated to his power
7) If one shows there wealth(ie wearing a Rolex), then people will know it exists
8) Baltimore is a city with a high crime rate.
One's brain knows all that information, many of which are stereotypes( ie thinking that night is more dangerous than morning is also stereotyping the time of day(bigots! ); recognizing the difference between the night time and daytime is also discriminating between pieces of information). Given all that information above, why wouldn't one expect their brain to make them turn around? Again, one's brain cares about processing information and experiences and making judgements/decisions based off of it to keep oneself alive. It is doing its job. If one wants to self-flagellate themselves because of this, that is their prerogative, but it is hardly wrong.
This is basically a politically motivated myth. There are very few animal species which are homosexual. There are many which show bisexual behavior, but those are two different words for a reason! When one starts to talk about science, precise/specific definitions matter. Claiming that because many animals have sex with both males and females of their species, that this is evidence of homosexuality being natural is chicanery at best.
The specific definitions of homosexuality vs bisexuality is as follows: something which has sexual attraction to same sex, vs something which has sexual attraction to both sexes.
That is a massive difference. One is exclusive vs the other includes both. Saying that one equals the other is absurd. It is basically saying that being left-handed and being ambidextrous are the same thing. Literally, anyone who tried to make such a daft comparison to a member of the scientific community would be laughed out of the room. It would quickly be identified as something known as observer bias:
When one who is politically motivated is looking for homosexuality in nature, they will stretch anything to fit that definition.
Let's go further now!
How many animals are exclusively homosexual?
A few bird species, sheep, and humans. Even of the species which show exclusive homosexuality, one listed is sheep. If one understands the evolutionary history of sheep, they would know that sheep are not a "natural" species. They have been bred for generations by humans, so they are not a good representation of what is natural or not. The evolutionary process they underwent isn't natural selection but an alternative called artificial selection.
This pales in comparison to the number of species which show bisexual behavior, which by some estimates are over 1,000. There various reasons that some species undergo bisexual behavior, ie:
If one is familiar with African Elephant behavior, one would recognize this prison effect. Male elephants as soon as they reach adult age leave the herd(which is exclusively adult female elephants and young calves) and live either independently or with groups of a few other males. These male elephants will have sex with each other for fun, but they will breed with a female when they have a chance.
Similar behavior is seen in humans among 3 groups: Samurai, Spartans, and Central Asians/Pathans. Samurai and Spartan soldiers would indulge in homosexual behaviors while out on their campaigns, but would return to their wives after these campaigns. They were not considered homosexual, but, at best bisexual. Similarly, Central Asians/Pathans engage historically engage in rampant pedophilia of young boys(think of dancing boys). In fact, much Urdu poetry is said to be about the carnal desires the poets had for young boys! Despite living in hardcore Islamic societies where death is the punishment for homosexuality, these behaviors were/are significantly prevalent, even today. There was a case where some American soldiers were reprimanded by their commanding officers for stopping the Afghans from engaging in such behavior with young boys (hooray for cultural sensitivity! ).
Another is this
Here we see these fish engage in homosexual behaviors to be more attractive to females!
The point of the studies above and the comments about bisexuality here is that there are many reasons why bisexuality can occur in nature: be more attractive to females, absence of females, etc. Those reasons don't fit in our mold as humans and can't be used to say these animals are homosexual! Human homosexuals aren't engaging their behavior because to attract the opposite sex, otherwise we would call them bisexuals! They say they are only attracted to members of the same sex.
There are clear and specific definitions:
Homosexual activity: engaging in sex with the same sex
Heterosexual activity: engaging in sex with the opposite sex
Homosexual: one who engages exclusively in homosexual activities
Heterosexual: one who engages exclusively in heterosexual activities
Bisexual: one who engages in both homosexual and heterosexual activities
FYI, it is estimated that there are almost 8,000,000 animal species in the world of which only around 1,000,000 have been described/studied at a rudimentary level. To that total, numerous new species are discovered yearly! Even 1,000 is a drop in the ocean when compared to the scope of how many species there are.
This idea I disagree with again. The word "normal" also has a definition.
If one wants to say that we should say all humans are normal, that's fine, that is their prerogative. However, I don't agree that there is a conspiracy to say something is normal. By any standard, heterosexuality is the norm in animals (humans are also animals ). One can attempt to stretch the definition to include everything so as not to offend anyone, but that is more of a political decision by those parties concerned with doing it.
I personally have never had a Christian Professor of mine try to influence me from a religious angle when learning basic facts of animal behavior ie telling me that elephants are going to burn in eternal hellfire for engaging in homosexual activities.
This is mostly true, but there is also an inbuilt assumption in it that all religions/culture viewed homosexuality as the same. This isn't really the case and is more of a blanket statement. The reality is this:
It's inaccurate to say that humans are/were consistently completely against homosexual activity, IMO. It's even more inaccurate to generalize the behaviors of certain religions/philosophies on all of them, as if most people have studied comparative religions/philosophies and understand the core philosophies or teleologies of every diverse tradition in human history.
This comes down to personal bias. Ask Muslims what they think is archaic and they will say ABC, ask a leftist they will say XYZ. There isn't really a point in discussing it. What is true however, is that the share of religiously unaffiliated people is falling globally.
For a lot of people, the idea that religion is archaic is false and that share of the global population is going to increase.Even the share of unaffiliated people include within it people who don't identify with a particular religion but believe in a higher power, Deists, etc. One isn't going to convince people by stating what they think is backwards, IMO!
Both of these ideas are flawed/inaccurate IMO.
Here is a version of something I posted in another thread
Somethings can be measured by objective values: compare internet speeds from the 90s, 2000s, and 2010s. There are objective measures by which one can compare what came before and what came after. This usually applies to technology. These are things most people can agree are modern.
On the other hand, there are other things which come down to the ideas/opinions that people have. This is where the abuse of the word modern gets tiring.
Let's take Mother Russia as an example for now:They decriminalized homosexual activity in 1993. Did anything happen? No, nothing happened. Just doing that didn't create a growth spurt in GDP, it didn't address the terrorism they are facing, it didn't address their demographic problems relating to a declining population, it didn't guarantee high oil prices to stabilize their economy. All it did was legalize homosexuals having sex. It is not really different than if Al-Baghdadi said that if Russians started persecuting homosexuals that they would suddenly be greatly benefited.
So now it comes down to, is the ability of homosexuals to have sex objectively better than the inability of them to have sex. If so, how?
The answer to this question by liberandus is always either empty rhetoric about equality or sloganeering about "love is love" or "it's 2018 bro." It's never anything someone can objectively process and compare.
We are left with something along the lines of this reasoning: "The West does it, therefore it is modern."
As if the West doing something is the basis of it being objectively good. The West developed and became the dominant part of the globe for only the last 3-400 years, most of which there was active persecution of homosexuals. By the logic of copying the West, should we start persecuting homosexuals? After all, that is what they did while they ascended to the top of the globe. While we are at it, let us remove the right to vote from women and suspend democracy as well, after all, the West developed mostly as monarchies, often with open connections between the governments and and the Churches and women were basically kept at home. Let us also reinstate slavery, after all, the global slave trade was crucial in providing labor for the West.
Most of that is crazy! It is also crazy to think that if tomorrow we copy everything the West does in "the current year" that we can suddenly call India modern. Pro-tip: declaring there are 63 genders, that "some women have penises", or that species is a social construct aren't going to make Bharat "modern".
Modernity is almost entirely a function of economic development not really a cultural one. The West became modern because they adopted free markets (strong law and order, strong property rights, lack of government interference in business, a rules-based system); because they made all the key technologies of the past several centuries (steam engine[+other key technologies of the industrial revolution], the printing press, the harnessing of electricity); and because the key countries had domestic stability(no invasions into Europe, a lack of ethnic/religious conflicts).
The same goes for the East Asians, who also adopted free-market, rules-based economies and industrialization. These countries are culturally very different than Western countries, yet they are also modern!
This skewed idea of modernity is even more troublesome when one compares it to the other buzzword, "progress." In the context of this thread, there are at least 4 billion Christians/Muslims/Jews in the world currently. All of whose texts pretty clearly view homosexuality as a sin (the others 3 billion people may or may not think something similar and certainly all members of the former religious groups don't necessarily hate homosexuality, but for arguments sake let's assume all 4 billion think it is an atrocity).
How exactly is one going to convince these 4 billion people? By claiming they are regressive, backward, pendus? That's not going to work methinks. Add to that if more people adopt their ideals, they will view what they think is true as progressive and the counter arguments as regressive. After all, they also view their opinions and world view as progress.
Another problem with this idea can be seen articulated here by one of my twitter acquaintances where it is described as inherently homogenizing and supremacist.
Furthermore, as I alluded to in my earlier post, the idea of linear progress is an Abrahamic concept. Our Dharmic tradition views the world/time/history in a cyclic fashion.
I can easily argue that the cyclic view is more accurate:
When one looks at the history of any nation/civilization, there are always crests and troughs. Not a single civilization in history has consistently gotten better and better throughout their entire history. Even the West is in decline right now in relative terms as their power and influence grows smaller and the Chinese power and influence grows larger.
In Indian history we can see aspects of the past where we fit what is considered progress by modern standards ie
but our modern left-liberals like Nehru passed blasphemy laws as soon as he got the chance. Even in Punjab just recently, Capt. Singh just based even more blasphemy laws!(Left-liberals of course are dead silent )
Similarly, currently India is one of the worst countries when it comes to property rights of citizens (Socialism FTW)
In the past, we had some of the original articulations of property rights in human history, over 1000 years before John Locke articulated the concept in the West!
Read this excerpt on the Satavahanas dynasty where women had property rights!
and then read through this text if you have time: it's called the Naradiya Dharmashastra: (One can get the full text from that website and search through it for references to property rights)
One can read through the Naradiya and see how well the concept of property rights for people was articulated.
Just using those two examples for now, can we really say progress exists? Our ancestors back scores of generations had greater free speech and property rights than we do now in 2018.
Similar things can be seen in Roman history where Homosexuals were openly accepted! What happened next? As soon Constantine Christianized Rome, what happened to the homosexuals? Even today, Italy still doesn't accept homosexuals in the way Romans did!
I can give a modern example as well: the United States. The amazing thing about the US in history was that from essentially the moment that it got independence from the Brits and became a sovereign republic, they had basically absolute free speech! The US has essentially never had either hate speech or blasphemy laws. The only restrictions were that one couldn't call for violence and eventually libel laws.
Compare the US to the rest of the West:
The US is far and away the leader in free speech. It has less restrictions than even the UK, which it shares culture with! It's northern neighbor Canada has both hate speech and blasphemy laws!
Over the last decade, this has been changing, ie:
Look at New York City's newish law to police speech
Or look at these GSS data
Now that I spammed multiple graphs, one can see what I am getting at. The support for free speech in the US is dwindling. There are very likely going to be at least hate speech laws in the US in a few decades with the changing of demographics. Is it now progress that the nation with the best free speech laws in history is probably going to restrict those freedoms?
The overall point here is that what people consider to be progress in the social sphere, directly reflects the people. The idea that we as a species are linearly progressing to a utopia of equality and other assorted "liberal values" is pure nonsense. The evidence from history is clear. Values one cares about are those one must fight for. They aren't just going to become what one wants while they sit on their bum!
The idea of linear progress is Abrahamic: using Islam as an example
Before Prophet: The Era of Jahilliyah ---> Prophet Arrives as the perfect human and sets the perfect example for mankind ---> The end of history arrives and Muslims are taken to Jannat and Kafirs burn in eternal hellfire
Jews exist ---> God comes to Earth as Jesus ---> Jesus communicates the Bible to his disciples ---> The perfect morality is there for mankind ---> Judgement day arrives and Christians are taken to heaven and infidels/heathens burn in eternal hellfire.
Unequal and Regressive time ---> Enlightenment happens in Europe ---> Western Liberal Democracy and ever increasing Equality (A heaven on Earth where everyone is equal is to speak. )
There is even a prominent left-liberal intellectual Francis Fukayama, who wrote the book "The End of History" where he describes how modern Western liberal democracies are the pinnacle of humanity and human sociocultural evolution and that history is basically "over."
Here is a quote lifted from Wikipedia of his book
What's even more similar is that all three ideologies above are universality/globalist ideologies, so they necessarily need to expand to the "jaahil" population! If one notices, left liberals have the same missionary zeal that Christian missionaries do. The West even wages wars to spread democracy and freedom, just like the two religions mentioned invaded countries to convert people.
(In comparison to this, one should read the books by Prof. Jan Assman, particularly the book "The Price of Monotheism"; "The Heathen in his Blindness by Prof Balagangadhara, and "Europe, India, and the Limits of Secularism" by Jakob de Roover)
Of course there are Westerners who agree with the cyclic view of history. One such author was Oswald Spengler, a German author, who wrote several books such as the "Decline of the West" and the "Clash of Civilizations" where he describes the rise and fall of civilizations in history, such as Greco-Roman civilization, and predicts future civilizational conflicts ie the big one is the West vs Islam vs Confucianism(read China).
Another one is the work "Sex and Culture" by JD Unwin, where he documents how sexual conservatism is universally present when civilizations undergo their growth spurts and success and there are declines in sexual morality at the times when civilizations collapse.
One can also read about the 45 year cycle in American history or the 90 year cycle in Indian history.
I kind of agree with this, but it doesn't make sense from a legal perspective.
All legal arguments need to follow more sound logic than something as simple as consent, as judgement create precedents that courts are to follow in the future, and judgement by the Supreme Court are directly tied to the power and role of the Judicial branch of government.
First the flaws/questions to ask on the idea of consent:
Are Homosexuals special? This argument of consent only comes up when homosexuals are involved. We never get the idea of consent when other legal questions are brought up:
I consent to the use of hard drugs, why is the government involved in my choices as an adult?
I consent to the act of assisted suicide when I am sick in the hospital. Why am I not legally allowed to consent to die when I have a terminal disease?
I consent to suicide without disease. I have a horrible life that has little chance to improve. Why can a consenting adult not buy drugs which will aide them in a painless suicide?
The Armin Meweis case (this was a case where another man consented to have himself killed and eaten by a different man named Armin Meweis)
At what point was my consent taken when taxes were levied on me, especially taxes which are used for causes that I don't agree with, ie funding Urban Naxals at JNU?
At what point was my consent taken when I was made into a 2nd class citizen in India, where people think who think I deserve to be tortured in hellfire for eternity get preferential rights by virtue of being minorities, despite their history as persecutors in the country?
At what point was my consent taken when a constitution was made and imposed on an entire nation with little representation from outside 1 political party which never crossed 50% voteshare in a single election in independent Indian history?
At what point was my consent taken when a dictator inserted words such as Secularism and Socialism into the constitution of a democracy despite no democratic mandate to do the same?
At what point did I consent to have all my temples and schools put under government control, while privileged minorities are free to self-organize, propagate their culture, etc?
At what point did I consent to have numerous mass murderers celebrated in the textbook that I had to learn from as a child?
Do I have the ability to consent to refusing services to people I don't like at my business(es)?
Where did I consent to having un-elected judges determine policy in a "democracy"?
I am not necessarily asking all the question above, but those are certainly all questions that can be asked regarding consent. In none of those situations was the consent of the individual important, but suddenly homosexuals get an extra right where their consenting matters to the creation of a law?
That was just individual consent. Now let's consider the concept of the "Consent of the Governed": this is a fundamental concept of democracy. It means: In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and lawful when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised
The state is only justified in using power, when it represents the will of the people. This is in line with the textbook definition of democracy:
The will of the majority of people in a democracy provides the impetus for state action/ represents the consent of the governed.
This of course flies in the face of the liberandu refrain that democracy isn't majority rule, but one should know that liberandus don't actually believe in democracy. They only believe in democracy where they pre-approve the choices the people can make and in that limited spectrum, the people can decide. Nothing can go against what liberandus say, because, after all, they are the self appointed thekedars of humanity, modernity, progress, blah, blah blah, etc etc
This of course is the mirror image of the right wingers like the Iranians who follow a similar pattern as what liberandus advocate. Iran has very free elections where the citizenry can vote for numerous options on the numerous electoral issues, but certain issues are off limits. The Ayatollah and other religious leaders of Iran put certain restrictions on what the Iranian people can vote for, namely that which is against Shia Islam.
This is obviously a mirror image to liberandus' views of democracy where the unwashed, illiberal masses can't vote for what the "intellectuals" view as regressive or against equality.
We see this very thing in this case:
Was the will of the majority of India that the Judges decriminalize homosexuality? No, read here:
73 Lok Sabha MPs present, 58 MPs against decriminalization, 14 for decriminalization, 1 abstains, and 470 weren't even involved in the voting on the bill.
One doesn't even know where the actual Indian people stand on this issue, but the judges see fit to use state power to remove a law? (BTW my guess is that most Indian people are neutral to the issue, but there are more against decriminalization and less for.)
Furthermore, read parts of the court's judgement:
Milord Mishra is just copy and pasting random, irrelevant lines from random European philosophers/poets to determine morality for Indian people. Does India have no past of its own from which to base Indian morality?
Read the line with children highlighted. WTF are consensual acts which children can engage in? Are they setting the table for future legalization of pedophillia. I think so. Some in the West are preparing ground for the same, don't believe me? Open the spoiler below and read the links
Also where do the miilords get the idea of "inherent characteristics." Which one of them is qualified to talk about what are and aren't "inherent characteristics" of people. (Again I will address this later as well!)
And more, get a load of this power grab by the court, Read the next 3 quotes I provide and think about it in terms of the concept of democracy and consent of the governed I posted above
Here they say that the majority does not determine what is constitutional in a democracy. Then who does? The answer is simple: around 100 un-elected judges, "prominent citizens", and 5-star activists get to decide what a nation of 1.3 Billion people's constitution says and what laws are allowed in it.
(What is funny here is it is not Hindus who banned homosexuality. It was Christian colonizers ie the British. Why are they implying Hindus here(again the bulk of evidence suggests Hindus are neutral to this issue)? Even the litigants vs the motion to decriminalize homosexuality were 3 different Christian organizations. )
Then the milords say
In the same judgement the milords say that the constitution is a living and breathing document. This is a common term in constitutional law where the debate is whether a constitution should be a living, breathing document which can be changed or is strictly constructed and unchangeable(this limits judicial activism and the extent of powers that any branch of government can create for itself ).
We already know the Indian judges are activists, so it's not surprising that they interpret the constitution as a living, breathing document, but follow the logic of the previous quote. The constitution is not subject to majoritarian views or popular morality. The judges are saying the constitution can change, but only we un-elected judges can determine what changes can be made. This directly implies they are usurping legislative power(Lok and Rajya sabha) of amending the constitution.
They also proceed to say the same thing here!
That article is from the 14th of this month. The judges literally just said that the legislature can't override their decision, despite the legislative branch in India being the only branch which is directly elected by the Indian people.
Judges decisions are greater than the decisions of the Indian people's and their representatives(the MPs)! The people can change the constitution, but only in ways that the un-elected judges see fit.
It can logically follow that: The consent of the governed is irrelevant, unless the governed consent to what the un-elected judges say is allowed!
Two definitions I will leave you with in this section
The judges are turning India into their own personal oligarchy/kritarchy
By all, decriminalize homosexuality, but anyone who actually cares about democracy should support it being done by convincing teh majority of Indian people/their representatives ie the Lok/Rajya Sabha MPs.
IMO some of you are celebrating the Judiciary seizing power from the Indian people!!!
This is fair enough, but empathy levels are different in different people! I have empathy for even the smallest bug getting squashed, a chicken/goat getting beheaded, a tree getting cut. I guess it is the Jain influence in Gujarati culture, or maybe its just me personally. Likewise some people lack empathy for animals, or for people different than them, some people only have empathy for animals and not really for humans etc etc.
Also I think this is always worth remembering, from the book "The Darkening Age" by Catherine Nixey
It is all well and good to be empathetic toward other people, but that empathy can just as well get one killed. The Romans say the Christians as humans, the Christians saw the Romans as non-believers. There are no Romans anymore and the Christians sell their victimhood to gullible fools around the globe.
Last part in a truly mammoth post(the only part that you actually said yourself)
The idea that homosexuality is something people are born with isn't as conclusive as some would lead people to believe. It is more of an excuse for people to shut off all further discussion about options people have.
Here is the evidence:
Just using men here as an example, only ~37% in the variance in sexual orientation is explained by genes. That means there is a very significant environmental factor = it's not so settled that people are born with it. (As I mentioned, who gave the judges the data that it was settled that people are born homosexual)?
Here is a critical review of some of the evidence that was used to declare homosexuality as not a mental disorder, by the Catholic Medical Association, in case one wants to get the other perspective(while they will indeed be biased, one should also acknowledge the bias of those who decided it wasn't a disorder; it is always important to read a different sides perspective on an issue even if one ends up disagreeing with it. Judge what they write by the quality of content[or lack thereof]).
The other topic I decided to address later was the idea that "homophobia" is unnatural or illogical.
This is certainly a politically correct position, but there are arguments to be had on why people could be "homophobic"
Here are some studies that will illustrate the point
There are numerous studies that suggest that childhood sexual abuse could have a potentiating factor in children growing up to be some sort of sexual minority.
If this is true, which is possible, then would it really be illogical for someone, especially with kids, to be "homophobic"? If one's brain subconsciously perceives such a threat for one's children, then it can be expected that they will present negative behavior toward homosexuals.
Parents first instincts are to protect their kids( and pass on their genes). If they perceieve anything as a threat to that, they will react negatively.
Penultimately, before the APA declared homosexuality to no longer be a mental disorder. There were different treatment modalities to try to "cure" people of homosexuality. After it was no longer considered a mental disorder, a person who would try to "cure" homosexuality would likely be pulled up for ethical violations, malpractice, be considered a quack, or possibly lose their license. Therefore after the date it was stopped, there was likely little further research, if any, on potential "cures."
However, the same Catholic Medical Association I mentioned earlier has been arguing for a reopening of treatment options for those who want to be "cured." Read their arguments here
Do such treatments work? It's hard to say, as for the last 30-40 years it was considered not something to be treated. One can't treat something that isn't a disease! However, there is this study :
Some excerpts from it
This meta-analysis of 14 studies, all prior to 1975, did find some significant effectiveness to treating it. Read the whole thing to make your own opinions.
With that I bid all who read this far adieu, who knows when/if I will be back, but ...