Talk:Homosexuality

Update genetics section?
Would anyone familiar with RW's formatting/style be interested in updating the section on Xq28 to reference the studies conducted/published over the period 2012-2014? Link here (though I wasn't able to find one in public domain, sorry about that): https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/genomewide-scan-demonstrates-significant-linkage-for-male-sexual-orientation/864518601436C95563EA670C5F380343

196.54.41.39 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a mental disorder 2
I know this because i am gay myself ;( &mdash; Unsigned, by: 74.200.200.42 / talk / contribs


 * I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties dealing with your sexuality 74.200, I, personally, am of the opinion that being gay is hardwired in, not a software problem at all. To labor under that misunderstanding though can be a great burden. (Especially around the holidays). Take good care. CЯacke ®

Oh really https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder BAM.Doublethink (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Study concludes that one is not born being homosexual?
Hi, I came across a report from "The New Atlantis" on this subject, and I would like to discuss it to see how to deal with this information, thanks. (I must clarify that I am not against the LGBT group, I just want to see their opinions about it)

Link: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/preface-sexuality-and-gender &mdash; Unsigned, by: Slippy The Toad / talk / contribs
 * New Atlantis is an anti-LGBT journal, however, there are studies and data that contradict his conclusion. For example, about the suicide rate issue, there are too many tests that confirm it is because discrimination (with transexuality: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/ LGB-focused, CDC article:https://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm ). There are not studies, both psychological and biological with 100% of correlation.
 * Also, you put the ¿ in the title, so I suppose that you, like me, are a native Spanish speaker, here I left a twitter thread refuting the article with sources: https://mobile.twitter.com/balkraix/status/1049284546586402821

Oppression and Psychological harm
I have removed the sections "Oppression" and "Psychological harm", which are archived below.

The "Oppression" section talks essentially about arguments against same-sex marriage, so I think it would be more appropriate in the page Gay marriage, although those arguments are already there.

The "Psychological harm" section talks about drug abuse by homosexuals and when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. It has a potential but, as it is, is too confusing... it should be converted into a discussion about the past and current consideration of homosexuality in medicine, and probably the part on drug abuse by homosexuals should be drop.

Oppression
Many modern conservatives oppose the granting of protections and rights such as marriage to homosexuals, both on civil and religious grounds.

On the civil side, those opposed to gay marriage tend to claim that providing these protections would amount to "special rights" (although in most cases these are simply the same rights afforded to all other individuals) and deny that there are special social pressures on homosexuals which would require protection, i.e. "gay-bashing" and discrimination in general.

Before gay marriage laws were an issue, there were even more oppressive sodomy laws. The Supreme court case of Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws in Texas and 13 other states; Biological Exuberance was used as evidence that homosexual behavior is found abundantly in nature. (ref) Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, Bruce Bagemihl. Smith, Dinitia (February 7, 2004). "Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-10. (/ref)

Christian anti-gay-marriage activists generally fall back on various translations of the Old Testament to justify their view of (male) homosexuality as an abomination, while, of course, ignoring those rules laid down in those sections of the Bible that would personally inconvenience them. Homophobes often use the word "pervert" to refer to homosexuals. The Bible forbids a man to lie with another man as he does with a woman. However, under a literal interpretation, that would not be possible unless the other man has a vagina. And apparently, homosexuality between women is totally allowed by Biblical rules. Strangely enough, their own obsession with the sex lives of complete strangers is apparently not perverse in the least. Many largely religious groups claim that gay individuals can be "cured" of their homosexuality through reparative therapy, and that the existence of alleged "ex-homosexuals" proves that homosexuality is always a choice rather than a predisposition. Again interestingly, these attempts at reparative therapy are seen as doing "the Lord's work" rather than being a kind of brainwashing.

Male gay sex, like cussing your parents and being held in contempt of court, is one of the many "crimes" for which the Bible demands the death penalty. However, it is obvious yet unspoken that it is the worst of these "crimes", which is why Christians are devoting most of their attention to stopping anything that has anything remotely to do with gay sex. Conservatives have also stated that if gay marriage is legalized, bestiality and other disgusting acts would become socially acceptable as it would create a downhill slope of morality where we'll all eventually end up marrying our pets because they have Stockholm syndrome and are just so damn cute!(ref)supposedly(/ref) They also never talk about banning heterosexual marriage despite that same logic dictating that asexuals are the most ethical people on earth.

Psychological harm
Some research has found a higher incidence of drug use and addiction among homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. Other studies have found a higher degree of personality and psychological disorders.

Two hypotheses exist to explain this disparity between homo- and heterosexual individuals: The first is that homosexuality itself may constitute a disorder. Though once accepted in western psychiatry, in the 1970s the American Psychiatric Association rejected this theory. Before this, gay activists were railing against the APA's classification for years, and they said that there was no science to support homosexuality as a mental illness. Finally, the APA broke down and listened to the gay activists, looked at the data people claimed supported the illness classification, and saw that it was based upon a small clinical sample of men in the 1950s who had sought treatment because they hated being gay. The APA judged the evidence biased. When the psychiatrists looked at the few valid scientific clinical studies available in the 1970s, the scant evidence supported the theory that homosexuality is not an illness. Over time, this has only been proven to be more true now that it is no longer seriously debated. Today, virtually no reputable psychologist nor psychiatrist would counsel that gayness by itself is the cause of mental illness.

The second hypothesis is that this is due to the social stigma and discrimination against homosexual people, often starting in early life; while more sound this is criticised as more "politically correct" by some. Gay children are often ridiculed in schools; even as early as the primary school years, when one might think they're a little too young to be messing with ideas of sexuality, the stigma and rejection begins. "Gay" has been adopted as a slang term for "bad". As a result of this social stigma and rejection, gay people often suffer from depression and a lack of acceptance which in turn could explain lifestyle changes that lead to the increased prevalence of drugs and violence amongst them.

It is now widely accepted among psychologists that with acceptance people can, regardless their sexual orientations, live happy, healthy lives, as homosexuality and bisexuality are harmless sexual preferences that need not be changed.

McLaghing (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of "Love ♥❤️💗  " section
(Before you call me homophobe: Check that I have previously worked to improved this page.)

I have removed the section Love ♥❤️💗  , because: McLaghing (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Now the page is more on "homosexuality", as it should be, than "homophobia", as it was, so the "washing of the taste of bigotry" does not make sense anymore.
 * 2) Although surely written with good intentions, I believe it is really silly thinking that homosexuals need "love" at the and of this page...
 * 3) Contents about homosexual rights and activism should be in the page Gay rights.
 * I have no complaints. You're reasons are sound in my eyes at least. Comrade GC (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Group selection
Why is pseudoscience such as the gay uncle theory taken seriously in this article? No biologist would take the gay uncle theory seriously due to its being a group selectionist hypothesis. Recent epigenetic theories are not mentioned at all in this article! &mdash; Unsigned, by: 1.143.56.238 / talk
 * If you can cite peer-reviewed papers disputing the gay uncle theory, you're welcome to correct as appropriate. Also adding text with peer-reviewed citations for the epigenetic theories would be good. Bongolian (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)