Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

[Guest guest]

I have read that people with this syndrome are often more passive and quieter

than the general population - possibly because there communication skills are

decreased, so they shut down, esp. at school. But, what makes them more

violent? Being passive and violent don't seem to go together. Is it in

outburst, when they can't take something well? Is this just part of the genetic

defect? If yes, it's amazing how it can affect behavior.

jafa

Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

On 2/15/07, jafa <jafasum@...> wrote:

> Some may find it interesting that there is a condition called Kleinfelders

> Syndrome.

Yes! This is exaclty what I was thinking when folks were talking

about Pottenger's cats. Malnutrition would be expected to result in

meotic errors and these kinds of genetic defects. Klinefelter's

causes the feminization of the male body and has higher rates among

violent criminals. The rates in prison populations are much higher

than the general population.

TH

..

---------------------------------

Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.

Try the Beta.

[Guest guest]

Jafa,

> I have read that people with this syndrome are often more passive and

> quieter than the general population - possibly because there communication

> skills are decreased, so they shut down, esp. at school. But, what makes

> them more violent? Being passive and violent don't seem to go together. Is

> it in outburst, when they can't take something well? Is this just part of

> the genetic defect? If yes, it's amazing how it can affect behavior.

Being passive in the sense you're describing does seem to go together

with being violent to me, but I doubt all of them are exactly the same

anyway.

Here is the explanation from a textbook:

" About 1940, scientists identified two human abnormalities

characterized by aberrant sexual development, Klinefelter syndrome and

syndrome. Individuals with Klinfelter syndrome have genitalia

and internal ducts that are usually male, but their testes are

rudiementary and fail to produce sperm. They are generally tall and

have long arms and legs and large hands and feet.

Although some masculine development does occur, feminine sexual

development is not entirely suppressed. Slight enlargement of the

breasts (gynecomastia) is common, and the hips are often rounded.

This ambiguous sexual development, referred to as intersexuality, may

lead to abnormal social development. Intelligence is often below the

normal range. "

Looks like I was wrong and it's not Klinefelter that is associated

with crime but the 47, XYY, an extra Y chromosome rather than X and

that it's associated with nonviolent crime.

" Another human condition involving the sex chromosomes, 47, XYY, has

also been intesnsively investigated. Studies of this condition, where

the only deviation from diploidy is the presence of an additional Y

chromsome in an otherwise normal male karyotype, have led to an

interesting controversy.

" In 1965, s discovered 9 of 315 ales in a ish

maximum security prison to have the 47, XYY karyotype. These males

were significantly above average in height and had been incarcerated

as a result of antisocial (nonviolent) criminal acts. Of the nine

males studied, seven were of subnormal intelligence, and all suffered

personality disorders. Several other studies produced similar

findings. The possible correlation between this chromosome

composition and criminal behavrio piqued considerable interest and

extensive investigations of the phenotype and frequency of the 47, XYY

condition in both criminal and noncriminal populations ensued.

Above-average eight (usually over 6 feet) and subnormal intelligence

have been generally substantiated and the frequency of males

displaying this karyotype is indeed higher in penal and mental

institutions compared with unincarcerated males. "

It then describes a prospective study that was abandoned out of

concerns about ethics and whether " labeling " the people would produce

a self-fulfilling prophecy and concludes " Since Walzer and Gerald's

work, it has become apparent that many XYY males are present in the

population who do not exhibit antisocial behavior and who lead normal

lives. Therefore, we must conclude that there is no consistent

correlation between the extra Y chromosome and the predisposition of

males to behavioral problems. "

The table on the same page shows that the frequency is 20 times higher

in mental and penal institutions than the general population so I

guess it depends what you mean by " consistent " and " predisposition. "

" Such chromosomal variation originates as a random error during the

production of gametes. As first intorduced in chapter 2,

nondisjunction is the failure of chromosomes or choromatids to disjoin

and move to opposite poles during division. When this occurs in

meiosis, the normal distribution of chromosomes into gametes is

disrupted. "

I'm sure there's a nutritional component consider how vital nutrients

would be to the prevention of errors in every process in the body.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Jane,

> It's okay to call me a bigot right out here like that, to slander me

> in a way that's probably actionable, but I can't call homosexual

> behavior, in general, deviant in a technical sense? Hmmm.

This is a little silly. I have blue eyes and am in the minority --

actually they're more like turquoise so I'm in an even smaller

minority. But you wouldn't call me a " deviant " even though my eye

color " deviates " from the norm. The sense in which you'd be

technically correct in doing so is the same sense in which you are

technically correct in calling homosexuality deviant.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> > Well, none of us is sure what exactly what will get through to someone who

> is

> > dealing with deep seated bigotry and ignorance. However I am reasonably

> > certain that expressing no disapproval of such views will not get through

> to them.

I wasn't trying to. I didn't even think you were trying to, honestly,

given the way you approached it.

> > ³And, the fundamental question that is being asked, however poorly --

> > " what causes homosexuality " -- is something that I do not object to.²

> What causes heterosexuality?

Isn't that the same question?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

,

> Actually, ovulation is due to a combination of two hormones, estrogen

> and luteinizing hormone. It is, hoewever, not when PMS occurs. It's

> Pre-Menstrual Syndrome, not Pre-Ovulation Syndrome.

Right, I was misplacing in my mind where menstruation came relative to

ovulation; I just looked it up and I guess it's about as far apart as

it can get.

> PMS usually ocurrs in the two weeks prior to menstration or what would be

> called the luteal phase in ovulatory cycles. The later half of the cycle is

> ruled by a progesterone surge (which is what causes the thermal shift that

> indicates ovulation).

True, though estrogen remains high for most of it.

> (who incidentally doubts that this post will ever make it through b/c mine

> never do, but nonetheless knows quite a bit too much about women's cycles,

> unfortunately)

Well I got it. Mine always go through, I guess because I know so

little about women's cycles. :-)

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

yeah, yeah, yeah.

Hail Satan!

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: <jesusfirst369@...>

> ,

> The Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God. It says

in

> Romans 1:28, " And according as they did not like to retain God in their

> knowledge(homosexuals), God gave them up to a reprobate mind. " Reprobate can

be

> defined as ' a mind void of moral discernment.' I'm not trying to be

> controversial. Homosexuals are equal to fornicators, adulterers, ect. If

someone

> is doing that, they need to come to Christ. It's sexual sin. They need to come

> to Christ. No matter how " intelligent " someone may be; they are not immune to

> the flesh(sinful desires). I believe what Weston A. Price found was an

> excellent discovery but I'm sure he didn't want his work to come between

> people's spiritual needs. I know some of those missionaries in his day were

> bringing processed foods to the primitives( and that was stupid) but I'm sure

> those primitives will be thankful for all eternity for the prized Treasure

that

> the missionaries brought them, Christ.

>

>

>

> Stanley <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > I don't believe homosexuals are physically malnourished but

> > SPRITUALLY and MENTALLY malnourished.

>

> I can understand how your belief in primitive tribal superstition

> would lead to the belief that homosexuals are spiritually

> malnourished, but what evidence do you have that homosexuals are

> mentally malnourished? After all, some of humankind's greatest

> thinkers and creative giants have been homosexuals.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate

> in the Answers Food & Drink Q & A.

>

>

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> Jane,

>

> > It's okay to call me a bigot right out here like that, to slander me

> > in a way that's probably actionable, but I can't call homosexual

> > behavior, in general, deviant in a technical sense? Hmmm.

>

> This is a little silly. I have blue eyes and am in the minority --

> actually they're more like turquoise so I'm in an even smaller

> minority. But you wouldn't call me a " deviant " even though my eye

> color " deviates " from the norm. The sense in which you'd be

> technically correct in doing so is the same sense in which you are

> technically correct in calling homosexuality deviant.

>

Right. And most reasonably literate people know that in normal discourse,

'deviant' is a value judgement. For instance, Jews are in the minority in this

country, but you don't call their religious practices deviant, unless you are

judging their behavior in quite a negative way. That's the way the word is used

in anything approaching the contexts in which it has appeared in this

discussion.

Someone who would therefore defend its applications to homosexuals on these

technical grounds is being disingenuous.

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> Gene,

>

> > > Well, none of us is sure what exactly what will get through to someone who

> > is

> > > dealing with deep seated bigotry and ignorance. However I am reasonably

> > > certain that expressing no disapproval of such views will not get through

> > to them.

>

> I wasn't trying to. I didn't even think you were trying to, honestly,

> given the way you approached it.

Well, are you always trying to " do " something in your posts, or are you simply

responding? You can say, well, I was trying to do this, or that, but frankly I

don't think that much of the time that we are thinking that closely about an

objective. And true - I didn't have much hope that some of these bigoted,

ignorant people would be profoundly changed by my words. but I've seen this kind

of stuff appear far too often on this list, and it is met with silence, or

assent. I felt like I had to say something. In these situations, I admittedly

often don't have the patience to construct a careful response that is just going

to be ignored anyway. So, I'm rather more blunt.

>

> > > ³And, the fundamental question that is being asked, however poorly --

> > > " what causes homosexuality " -- is something that I do not object to.²

>

> > What causes heterosexuality?

>

> Isn't that the same question?

>

Well, no. But, really, it was an attempt to show that the question is kind of

strange, and has some presuppositions bundled up in it. What those are, are not

necessarily bigoted, but in some cases, I believe that they are. For instance, I

think that it's quite evident, some disclaimers notwithstanding, that some on

this list are interested in the 'scientific' question of what causes this

illness, or deviant behavior, homosexuality. Well, you can mix some science in

that, I guess, but not all scientific inquiry is good, and not all of it is

worthwhile.

[Guest guest]

Can we mellow on this subject? I'm the one putting through moderation the most

contentious messages in this thread. doesn't want me to moderate

discussions so I won't. Haven't heard from him in answer to my request to get

rid of this job for a month. I can tell you I will allow free speech so I

haven't held anything back. I will say that is not a theist too.

Imo, in observation hormones don't hold much if any water because both males and

females that prefer their own gender range from very masculine to very feminine.

I've read in either Nutrition and Your Mind or Personality Strength and

Psychochemical Energy both by that one male and one female patient

of his after his orthomolecular treatment switched gender preference, iirc. He

was intrigued but never researched. further. If this is a list on nutritional

healing then why is anyone looking down on any human being, whatever the label

put to them?

As for the subject, in North American native cultures men that showed to not be

the warrior type were given respected position as shaman, spiritual advisors.

Intuition and feeling were highly valued qualities.

Wanita

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

I think your right on progesterone. Both myself and a couple other people who

were put on progesterone wanted to jump out of our skin. We could kill. Our

patience, and I know mine was down to zero. I had my teeth clenched most of the

time and my heartrate would rise with the slightest agitation.

Now if adding the hormone progesterone to our bodies could do that, I would

think any hormone off kilter could do something. I would take it there have

never been definative tests on homosexual's hormones to show a correlation of

too much of this or that causes a trend to one way or another. Have they ever

had a high testosterone gay guy?

I still wonder though, how many were caused by molestation. I've seen on tv

some guys who were molested as children turned that way. Most of them said they

felt ashamed because in some way they felt something that wasn't all that

unpleasurable. So I would think a psychological impact would have to be put

into some of the equations.

And as for animals, they're animals. They lick their butts and stuff that

people wouldn't do. Cows will mount cows and they can't derive any pleasure

out of that. I think it's more of a reaction in animals than an action. They

feel the urge and whatever is close by will do. Such as a dog on a person's leg.

I think in animal's it's nothing but a primative urge. I would think normal

humans would be beyond that, otherwise people would be doing it out in public

with anything, animal, vegetable or mineral whenever the urge arose.

But what is interesting is that Marfan is something like that Klinefelter

syndrome, both having the long arms, legs, the difference in Marfan they have

heart and vein problems not sex problems. I wonder if there are genetic cross

overs with that.

Lorie

[Guest guest]

Ummm - who has suggested anything like 'pc' here? I think, and it's

> really a

> > very simple position - that people who consider homosexuals to be

> > degenerates, and abnormal, are classic bigots, no different than

> people who

> > consider blacks, women, jews, whomever, to be inferior. What about

> this do

> > you disagree with?

Being black, women, jews or whomever isn't a choice. I don't see the

connection.

Lorie

[Guest guest]

--- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> I think that you know what is meant, and you either think that

> intolerance of women, homosexuals, blacks, Martians, whomever, is a

> very bad thing or you don¹t. It appears that you don¹t.

Gene,

Actually, I'm tolerant of just about anything that doesn't cause harm

to someone else. It's OK with me if someone wants to eat their own

flesh or commit suicide. Maybe I'm too tolerant

Just because I tolerate something doesn't mean I think it's right or

that it's what I would choose to do. Sexual preferences among

consenting adults or even sexual abstinence certainly causes no harm.

In fact, I see a benefit from more sex that does not result in

procreation, because there's getting to be way too many of us on this

planet to support a sustainable healthy lifestyle and environment for

the masses. To avoid more pollution, pestilence, famine, murder, and

war, we definitely need to find more civil ways to limit population.

Reducing procreation is a big plus here.

Tolerance helps to minimize the murder and war parts too!

As far as the original topic of diet and sexual preference, my own

uneducated GUESS is that diet might at most have a minor influence.

But I have no evidence. Perhaps some individuals might want to seek

out a diet that enhances their sexual preference - if there is such a

diet. I see no harm in trying to determine which type of dietary

factors might favor which type of sexual preference, if this is even

possible.

My preference is to find a diet that leads to optimal health.

And I think just about everyone would agree that optimal health

includes enhanced libido. Especially at my age

<not getting any younger - needs fountain of youth>

[Guest guest]

I found this interesting, it's from this site:

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

Now I know that some mental illness including depression has seen some help with

adopting a diet that takes out refined food and sugar and adds B vitamins among

other nutrients. I had a health book that went into detail about that helping

people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders. Could consumption of refined

foods help the depression in homosexual men increase? And I wonder if there is

a link, like to people with insulin resistance who crave high carbs. Reading

about the higher incidence of bulemia in homosexuals makes me wonder if they too

might be junk food addicts. I'm not saying high carbs would make someone gay,

but could it be something that not only contributes to the depression but also

to the behaviour in someone that is predisposed?

from Medical Issues

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.

(Author of " My Genes Made Me Do It " )

Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of

suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates

of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance

abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that

reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic

list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides,

1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of

social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.'s action was to add

psychiatric authority to gay activists' insistence that homosexuals as a group

are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research

that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with

homosexuality.

In a review of the literature, Gonsiorek (1982) argued there was no data showing

mental differences between gays and straights--or if there was any, it could be

attributed to social stigma. Similarly, Ross (1988) in a cross-cultural study,

found most gays were in the normal psychological range. However some papers did

give hints of psychiatric differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. One

study (Riess, 1980) used the MMPI, that venerable and well-validated

psychological scale, and found that homosexuals showed definite " personal and

emotional oversensitivity. "

In 1991 the absolute equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality was strongly

defended in a paper called " The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Mental

Illness Model " (Gonsiorek, 1991). But not until 1992 was homosexuality dropped

from the psychiatric manual used by other nations--the International

Classification of Diseases (King and Bartlett, 1999)--so it appears the rest of

the world doubted the APA 1973 decision for nearly two decades.

Is homosexuality as healthy as heterosexuality? To answer that question, what is

needed are representative samples of homosexual people which study their mental

health, unlike the volunteer samples which have, in the past, selected out any

disturbed or gender-atypical subjects (such as in the well-known study by

Hooker). And fortunately, such representative surveys have lately become

available.

New Studies Suggest Higher Level of Pathology

One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among

homosexuals were six times greater than the average (Remafedi et al. 1998).

Then, more recently, in the Archives of General Psychiatry-- an established and

well-respected journal--three papers appeared with extensive accompanying

commentary (Fergusson et al. 1999, Herrell et al. 1999, Sandfort et al. 2001,

and e.g. 1999). J. included a commentary on the above

research; , it should be noted, conducted many of the muchpublicized " gay

twin studies " which were used by gay advocates as support for the " born that

way " theory. Neil Whitehead, Ph.D.

said, " These studies contain arguably the best published data on the

association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the

same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for

some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and

anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...The strength of

the new studies is their degree of control. "

The first study was on male twins who had served in Vietnam (Herrell et al.

1999). It concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5.1 times more likely

to exhibit suicide- related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual

counterparts. Some of this factor of 5.1 was associated with depression and

substance abuse, which might or might not be related to the homosexuality. (When

these two problems were factored out, the factor of 5 decreased to 2.5; still

somewhat significant.) The authors believed there was an independent factor

related to suicidality which was probably closely associated with some features

of homosexuality itself.

The second study (Fergusson et al. 1999) followed a large New Zealand group from

birth to their early twenties. The " birth cohort " method of subject selection is

especially reliable and free from most of the biases which bedevil surveys. This

study showed a significantly higher occurrence of depression, anxiety disorder,

conduct disorder, substance abuse and thoughts about suicide, amongst those who

were homosexually active.

The third paper was a Netherlands study (Sandfort et al. 2001) which again

showed a higher level of mental-health problems among homosexuals, but

remarkably, subjects with HIV infection was not any more likely than those

without HIV infection to suffer from mental health problems. People who are

HIV-positive should at least be expected to be anxious or depressed!

The paper thus concluded that HIV infection is not a cause of mental health

problems--but that stigmatization from society was likely the cause--even in the

Netherlands, where alternative lifestyles are more widely accepted than in most

other countries. That interpretation of the data is quite unconvincing.

The commentaries on those studies brought up three interesting issues.

1. First, there is now clear evidence that mental health problems are indeed

associated with homosexuality. This supports those who opposed the APA actions

in 1973. However, the present papers do not answer the question; is

homosexuality itself pathological?

2. The papers do show that since only a minority of a nonclinical sample of

homosexuals has any diagnosable mental problems (at least by present diagnostic

criteria), then most homosexuals are not mentally ill.

In New Zealand, for example, lesbians are about twice as likely to have sought

help for mental problems as heterosexual women, but only about 35% of them over

their lifespan did so, and never more than 50% (Anon 1995, Saphira and Glover,

2000, Welch et al. 2000) This corresponds with similar findings from the U.S.

Relationship Breakups Motivate Most

Suicide Attempts

Next, we ask--do the papers show that it is gay lifestyle factors, or society's

stigmatization, that are the motivators that lead a person to attempt suicide?

Neither conclusion is inevitable. Still, Saghir and Robins (1978) examined

reasons for suicide attempts among homosexuals and found that if the reasons for

the attempt were connected with homosexuality, about 2/3 were due to breakups of

relationships --not outside pressures from society.

Similarly, Bell and Weinberg (1981) also found the major reason for suicide

attempts was the breakup of relationships. In second place, they said, was the

inability to accept oneself. Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners

and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male

relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts

are proportionally greater. The median number of partners for homosexuals is

four times higher than for heterosexuals (Whitehead and Whitehead 1999,

calculated from Laumann et al 1994).

A good general rule of thumb is that suicide attempts are about three times

higher for homosexuals. Could there be a connection between those two

percentages?

Another factor in suicide attempts would be the compulsive or addictive elements

in homosexuality (Pincu, 1989 ) which could lead to feelings of depression when

the lifestyle is out of control (Seligman 1975). There are some, (estimates

vary, but perhaps as many as 50% of young men today), who do not take consistent

precautions against HIV (Valleroy et al., 2001) and who have considerable

problems with sexual addiction and substance abuse addiction, and this of course

would feed into suicide attempts.

The Effect of Social Stigma

Third, does pressure from society lead to mental health problems? Less, I

believe, than one might imagine. The authors of the study done in The

Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people

in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all

other countries.

Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of

homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special

legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and

virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance,

suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the

same rate as in the U.S.

In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark

and the U.S., Ross (1988) could find no significant differences between

countries - i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not

result in a higher level of psychiatric problems.

There are three other issues not covered in the Archives journal articles which

are worthy of consideration. The first two involve DSM category diagnoses.

Promiscuity and Antisocial Personality

The promiscuous person--either heterosexual or homosexual --may in fact be more

likely to be antisocial. It is worth noting here the comment of Rotello (1997),

who is himself openly gay: " ...the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its

transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes. "

Ellis et al. (1995) examined patients at an clinic which focused on genital and

urological problems such as STD's; he found 38% of the homosexual men seeking

such services had antisocial personality disorder, as well as 28% of

heterosexual men. Both levels were enormously higher than the 2% rate of

antisocial personality disorder for the general population (which in turn,

compares to the 50% rate for prison inmates) (s 1997).

Perhaps the finding of a higher level of conduct disorder in the New Zealand

study foreshadowed this finding of antisocial personality . Therapists, of

course, are not very likely to see a large number of individuals who are

antisocial because they are probably less likely to seek help.

Secondly, it was previously noted that 43% of a bulimic sample of men were

homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than

the rate in the population in general--meaning homosexual men are probably

disproportionately liable to this mental condition. This may be due to the very

strong preoccupation with appearance and physique frequently found among male

homosexuals.

Ideology of Sexual Liberation

A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most

extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate,

notes that " the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is

seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes. " Same-sex eroticism becomes

for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even

life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle.

Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis in the West, but even that tragedy

it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom.

And, according to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibility to avoid infecting

others with the HIV virus is completely foreign to many groups trying to counter

AIDS. The idea of protecting oneself is promoted, but protecting others is not

mentioned in most official condom promotions (France in the '80s was an

interesting exception). Bluntly, then, core gay behavior is both potentially

fatal to others, and often suicidal.

Surely it should be considered " mentally disturbed " to risk losing one's life

for sexual liberation. This is surely among the most extreme risks practiced by

any significant fraction of society. I have not found a higher risk of death

accepted by any similar-sized population.

In conclusion, then, if we ask the question " Is mental illness inherent in the

homosexual condition? " the answer would have to be " Further

research--uncompromised by politics --should be carried out to honestly evaluate

this issue. "

References

Anon. (1995): Lesbians use more mental health care. The Dominion (NZ) Nov 1, 14.

, J.M. (1999): Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen.

Psychiatry. 56, 876-880.

Bell, A.P.; Weinberg, M.S. (1978): Homosexualities. A Study Of Diversity Among

Men And Women. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Carlat, D.J.; Camargo, C.A.; Herzog, D.B. (1997): Eating disorders in males: a

report on 135 patients. Am. J. Psychiatry 154, 1127-1132.

Ellis, D; Collis, I; King, M (1995): Personality disorder and sexual risk taking

among homosexually active and heterosexually active men attending a

genito-urinary medicine clinic. J. Psychosom. Res. 39, 901-910.

Fergusson, D.M.; Horwood, L.J.; Beautrais, A.L. (1999): Is sexual orientation

related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch. Gen.

Psychiat. 56, 876- 880.

Gonsiorek, J.C. (1982): Results of psychological testing on homosexual

populations. In: Homosexuality. Social, Psychological and Biological Issues.

(Eds: , W.; Weinrich, J.D.; Gonsiorek, J.C.; Hotvedt, M.E.) Sage, Beverly

Hills, California, 71-80.

Gonsiorek, J.C. (1991): The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model

of homosexuality. In: Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy.

(Eds: Gonsiorek,J.; Weinrich, J.D.) Sage, 115-136.

Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True,W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen,S.;

Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study

in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, 867-874.

Kalichman, S.C.; Dwyer, M.; , M.C.; Hoffman, L. (1992): Psychological

and sexual functioning among outpatient sexual offenders against children: A

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) cluster analytic study. J.

Psychopath. Behav. Assess. 14, 259-276.

King, M.; Bartlett, A. (1999): British psychiatry and homosexuality. Brit. J.

Psychiatry. 175, 106-113.

Laumann, E.O.; Gagnon, J.H.; , R.T.; s, S. (1994). The Social

Organization of Sexuality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

s, R. (1997): Game theory backs crackdown on petty crime. New Scientist

156(2078), 18.

Pincu, L. (1989): Sexual compulsivity in gay men: controversy and treatment. J.

Couns. Dev. 68(1), 63-66.

Remafedi, G.; French, S.; Story, M.; Resnick, M.D.; Blum, R. (1998): The

relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a

population-based study. Am. J. Publ. Health 88, 57-60.

Riess, B. (1980): Psychological tests in homosexuality. In: Homosexual Behavior:

A Modern Appraisal. (Ed: Macmor,J.) Basic Books, New York, 298-311.

Ross, M.W. (1988): Homosexuality and mental health: a cross-cultural review. J.

Homosex. 15(1/2), 131-152.

Rotello, G. (1997): Sexual Ecology. AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. Dutton,

Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK.

Saghir, M.T.; Robins, E. (1973): Male and Female Homosexuality, A Comprehensive

Investigation. and Wilkins, Baltimore land. 335 pages.

Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel (2001): Same-sex sexual

behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58, 85-91.

Saphira, M.; Glover, M. (2000): New Zealand lesbian health survey. J. Gay Lesb.

Med. Assn. 4, 49-56.

Seligman, M.E.P. (1975): Helplessness - On Depression, Development And Death.

Freeman, London.

Socarides, C.W. (1995): Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Adam Margrave Books,

Phoenix, Arizona.

Valleroy, L. A.; Secura, G.; Mackellor, D.; Behel,S. (2001): High HIV and risk

behavior prevalence among 23- to 29- year-old men who have sex with men in 6

U.S. Cities. Poster 211 at 8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic

Infections, Chicago, Feb. 2001. http://64.58.70.224/2001/posters/211.pdf.

Welch, S.; Collings,S.C.D.; Howden-Chapman,P. (2000): Lesbians in New Zealand:

Their mental health and satisfaction with mental health services. Aust. N.Z.J.

Psychiatry 34, 256-263.

Whitehead, N.E.; Whitehead, B.K. (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington

House, Lafayette, Louisiana.

[ top of page ]

Updated: 20 April 2006

[Guest guest]

, I get that you are deeply attached to a superstitious belief

system that leads you to believe that homosexuals are spiritually

malnourished. What I asked for is the source of your belief that

homosexuals are mentally malnourished, and regurgitating even more

religious dogma doesn't strike me as having answered that question.

Or, should I just assume that the " mental malnourishment " you're

referring to is mind insufficiently indoctrinated with primitive

superstitious beliefs?

> >

> > I don't believe homosexuals are physically malnourished but

> > SPRITUALLY and MENTALLY malnourished.

>

> I can understand how your belief in primitive tribal superstition

> would lead to the belief that homosexuals are spiritually

> malnourished, but what evidence do you have that homosexuals are

> mentally malnourished? After all, some of humankind's greatest

> thinkers and creative giants have been homosexuals.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate

> in the Answers Food & Drink Q & A.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

> --- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>> > I think that you know what is meant, and you either think that

>> > intolerance of women, homosexuals, blacks, Martians, whomever, is a

>> > very bad thing or you don¹t. It appears that you don¹t.

>

> ³Gene,

>

> Actually, I'm tolerant of just about anything that doesn't cause harm

> to someone else. It's OK with me if someone wants to eat their own

> flesh or commit suicide. Maybe I'm too tolerant ²

>

> Well, I must confess that I¹m constantly tempted by the former, and not the

> latter...perhaps that¹s abnormal.

>

> I believe that intolerance of people because of who they are causes tremendous

> harm in this world. The dehumanization of people because of their race, their

> sex, their sexual orientation, their beliefs, etc, has caused tremendous harm

> ­ physical, cultural, psychological, and many multisyllabic words that I¹m too

> drunk to spell.

>

> I think that there is a fundamental difference between intolerance of this,

> and intolerance of this kind of intolerance.

>

> ³Just because I tolerate something doesn't mean I think it's right or

> that it's what I would choose to do. ³

>

> Well, not that you would choose to do it, but if you think it¹s wrong, what

> good comes of tolerating it? What if you think that it¹s very wrong, and

> causes tremendous harm? What good comes of tolerating it?

>

> ³ Sexual preferences among

> consenting adults or even sexual abstinence certainly causes no harm.

> In fact, I see a benefit from more sex that does not result in

> procreation, because there's getting to be way too many of us on this

> planet to support a sustainable healthy lifestyle and environment for

> the masses. To avoid more pollution, pestilence, famine, murder, and

> war, we definitely need to find more civil ways to limit population.

> Reducing procreation is a big plus here.²

>

> Well, coincidentally, my desire to eat my own flesh is a half hearted attempt

> to limit the population. Not in the sense that it¹s suicidal, but since I¹m

> not married and procreating, and don¹t feel like suicide or murder, eating my

> own flesh is the best I can do.

>

> ³Tolerance helps to minimize the murder and war parts too!²

>

> Well, practically, being intolerant of bigotry doesn¹t do anything to increase

> murder and war if you are not inciting people to violence and war. So, I get

> to have my flesh and eat it too.

>

> ³As far as the original topic of diet and sexual preference, my own

> uneducated GUESS is that diet might at most have a minor influence.

> But I have no evidence. Perhaps some individuals might want to seek

> out a diet that enhances their sexual preference - if there is such a

> diet. I see no harm in trying to determine which type of dietary

> factors might favor which type of sexual preference, if this is even

> possible.²

>

> Well, this obviously falls into the general category of diet enhancing one¹s

> health, which is a good way to think of it.

>

> ³My preference is to find a diet that leads to optimal health.²

>

> ah ­ didn¹t I just say that? Well, I guess you hadn¹t read my reply yet...

>

> ³And I think just about everyone would agree that optimal health

> includes enhanced libido. Especially at my age

>

> Well, yes. I think that we generally know when we feel good....

>

> I think that the original topic was that you essentially called me a hypocrite

> for calling someone who dehumanized homsexuals a bigot. I respect what you say

> in this post, but I don¹t see anything to really back up the previous post.

>

> Gene

>

[Guest guest]

>>I reread your previous post and I'm comfortable with what I wrote.>>

Cool. Im comfortable with what i wrote too.

Jane

[Guest guest]

>

> Jane,

>

> > It's okay to call me a bigot right out here like that, to

slander me

> > in a way that's probably actionable, but I can't call homosexual

> > behavior, in general, deviant in a technical sense? Hmmm.

>

> This is a little silly. I have blue eyes and am in the minority --

> actually they're more like turquoise so I'm in an even smaller

> minority. But you wouldn't call me a " deviant " even though my eye

> color " deviates " from the norm. The sense in which you'd be

> technically correct in doing so is the same sense in which you are

> technically correct in calling homosexuality deviant.

>

> Chris

>

This is why analogies were removed from the SAT's. Nobody can use

them anymore.

Blue eye " minority " hardly compares to " gay " minority numerically,

and even if it did, I would not call your eyes deviant, since it's

not a behavior, but I *would* call it abnormal.

Jane

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

>

>> >

>> > Jane,

>> >

>>> > > It's okay to call me a bigot right out here like that, to

> slander me

>>> > > in a way that's probably actionable, but I can't call homosexual

>>> > > behavior, in general, deviant in a technical sense? Hmmm.

>> >

>> > This is a little silly. I have blue eyes and am in the minority --

>> > actually they're more like turquoise so I'm in an even smaller

>> > minority. But you wouldn't call me a " deviant " even though my eye

>> > color " deviates " from the norm. The sense in which you'd be

>> > technically correct in doing so is the same sense in which you are

>> > technically correct in calling homosexuality deviant.

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

>

> ³This is why analogies were removed from the SAT's. Nobody can use

> them anymore.

> Blue eye " minority " hardly compares to " gay " minority numerically,

> and even if it did, I would not call your eyes deviant, since it's

> not a behavior, but I *would* call it abnormal.

>

> Jane²

>

> So ­ I just did a quick google research on % of Jews in the U.S. It looks to

> be way below the percentage of homosexuals. Let¹s take just the percentage of

> those Jews who observe their religion in some way. This would obviously be

> constituted as behavior, and behavior that is certainly more of a minority

> than homosexual behavior. You would consider this to be Œdeviant¹ behavior? Of

> course, in any kind of meaningful discussion, what we should mean by this,

> unless you are just Œtrolling¹ is that it is deviant in the same way that

> people call homosexual behavior deviant. It is meant as a judgement. In this

> context, it really means that the behavior deviates from acceptable behavior.

> In any case, behavior doesn¹t have to be in the majority to be considered

> normal, and behavior that is in the minority doesn¹t necessarily deviate from

> the norm.

>

> It seems very important to you to describe homosexual behavior as deviant

> behavior, and that is why, well, you are so obviously a bigot.

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

To interpret homosexuality you have to base your ideas on preconceived

notions. If you believe in the evolution religion, and,therefore, that we are

highly evolved monkeys, then, of course, homosexual behavior is just animal

instinct. But if you believe that we are a special creation of God, then our

Creator meant for there to be one man and one woman. You seem to be basing your

point-of-view on the evolution religion. Thats fine. But thats your RELIGION. I

personally can't see how any man could deviate from having sexual intercourse

with anyone other than a woman, the most gorgeous " creatures " on the planet,

unless there was some kind of mental problem. But I have no " scientific proof "

that they have a mental problem; I'll admit that. I believe the Bible ( " my

primitive text " ) and therefore it says that homosexuals have a spiritual

problem. I believe that. Science can't prove or disprove that. It's outside the

realm of the spiritual. Thanks for your time.

Recent Activity

15

New Members

Visit Your Group

Give Back

for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

---------------------------------

Looking for earth-friendly autos?

Browse Top Cars by " Green Rating " at Autos' Green Center.

[Guest guest]

Why is it perfectly acceptable to call people who think differently

and are more creative Attention Deficit *DISORDER*, and look for all

kinds of chemical and nutritional causes, and then drug millions of

children and adults because they don't *fit-in*, but if one says

*What causes homosexuality, or does X contribute to it?* (which IS

the same question as *what causes heterosexuality?*) they are

suddenly accused of all sorts of slanderous beliefs??

Those who are *diagnosed* with ADD do not have a *disorder*, they are

simply different, maybe even have an advantage. I deeply resent

being referred to as a *Disorder* but I don't go around attacking

people for their choice of words when I know they are just trying to

understand people's differences and the causes. Just like a Blue-

Blue eye gene causes blue eyes, we can ask why and find out without

being attacked. It is not *normal* to be an albino, but no one

accuses someone of being a bigot if they are looking for what causes

that. Unless we use the term natural in the bell curve sense, with

those being on the edges of the curve un-natural, there is really

nothing on this earth that isn't natural, since everything here, is

at some point of nature.

Hormones are a large part of our sexuality, sexual behavior, and

attraction (Do we need citations on this?). Of course one would

suspect that hormones will have an impact on sexual behavior,

heterosexual or homosexual. I would like to see just one study that

concludes that hormones do NOT have any effect at all on sexual

behavior.

Jan

>

> Gene,

>

> > > ³And, the fundamental question that is being asked, however

poorly --

> > > " what causes homosexuality " -- is something that I do not

object to.²

>

> > What causes heterosexuality?

>

> Isn't that the same question?

>

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

[Guest guest]

Jafa, why is it *interesting* that men with Kleinfelders Syndrome

don't appear to have much of a problem with math?

Jan

>

> Some may find it interesting that there is a condition called

Kleinfelders Syndrome. This is where a male has an extra x

chromosome. xxy, instead of xy. This is more common than you would

think. 1 out of 700. The clinical findings are very low levels of

testosterone, higher levels of estrogen, infertility (no sperm to

malformed sperm-possibly some normal sperm), breast tissue in some,

decreased muscle gain, laziness and lethargy, social problems

(because of decreased cognitive development and language abilities -

including reading, writing and expression). Many are diagnosed as

ADD, as they tend to not understand and phrase out during

instruction. Math doesn't appear to be as much of a problem, which

is interesting. ...>

> jafa

>

[Guest guest]

LOl...sorry...I had to respond to this one...and yes it will probably fuel the

fires..however...my nearest relatives look nothing like an ape....they had

names..Adam and Eve....are the most distant ones I have

Re: Re: Homosexuality In Primitives

Interestingly though Bonobo apes which are our nearest relatives practice all

types of sexuality including homosexuality>>

" Our nearest relatives " , huh? Well...following that line of " reasoning " (or,

relevance)...then to find the HomoSexxed practiced in a human would signal a

.

.

[Guest guest]

Dang...Gene....MANY things we do in life are judgments. If we choose one thing

over another thing..even simple things like the color of a shirt we are going to

wear..it is a judgment. If we approach this from a scientific point of

view...and grant you..I'm no scientist, the female body is designed to " fit " the

male body. Anything outside of that would be considered " abnormal " . I think it

is unfair that a man cannot experience the " joys " of childbirth. But, on that

same note...if a man were to conceive..that would be " abnormal " . We live in a

world full of " abnormalities " that is the way it is. I don't see how you can

justify calling someone a " bigot " simply because they disagree with your

thoughts. I applaud Jane...I think she makes a very good statement. You have a

liberal point of view...and that is ok. Others on here have a more conservative

point of view, and that is ok. While others...will jump at the opportunity to

debase and offend others because they disagree with them. This is an open

board, and no one...should be calling others names. Actually, looking at the

dictionary....bigotry applies to intolerance in matters of religion, race, and

politics. It says nothing about homosexuality. This may actually shock you,

but I have many friends who are homosexuals, and some are even my best

friends....I might add...and I am a Bible believing born again Christian.

It is no crime for someone to voice their opinion, and they should be allowed to

do so without being attacked.

Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

Sorry - I strongly disagree. If I call a behavior abnormal, or deviant, or

whatever (can't remember the words and don't have the original email) it is a

JUDGEMENT.

Similarly - you are implying that it is deviant behavior. Pure and simple -

this is not an academic question - it is a value judgement, and you are a bigot.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Jane Rowland " <classicalwriter@...>

> Uh Oh, now you've struck a nerve Ishtar!;-D

>

> It's an academic question folks, not a value judgement. Relax.

>

> I think it makes perfect sense. Poor nutrition, part. the ingestion of high

> amounts of phytoestrogens and anything that would disrupt the endocrine

system

> is going to disturb the hormone cascade. More estrogen in males, more

feminine

> attributes, also more *deviant* behavior, deviant in that it DEVIATES from

what

> a healthy hormonal response would be, given healthy hromones.

>

> The same can happen to women. This isn't to say that all homo. behavior is

the

> result of bad nutrition, but that bad nutrition could most certainly disrupt

> ones normal hormonal balance and that behaviors are affected dramatically by

> hormones. I doubt any female would argue with that.

>

>

> Now please, folks, let's allow a discussion of curiosity to unfold without

> turning into an intolerant, defensive angry mob. ;-) It's okay, we're all

bright

> and liberal minded. Lets' not kill poor Ishtar (or me!) for discussing a hot

> topic. Im really fascinated!

>

> This is not about homo rights, but hormones, behavior and diet, period.

>

> jane

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> The more important question would be for you to find the quote where someone

> (I¹m assuming you¹re referring to me) accuses someone else of being a bigot

> simply for asking about the Œcauses¹ of homosexuality.

>

>

> ³Why is it perfectly acceptable to call people who think differently

> and are more creative Attention Deficit *DISORDER*, and look for all

> kinds of chemical and nutritional causes, and then drug millions of

> children and adults because they don't *fit-in*, but if one says

> *What causes homosexuality, or does X contribute to it?* (which IS

> the same question as *what causes heterosexuality?*) they are

> suddenly accused of all sorts of slanderous beliefs??

>

> Those who are *diagnosed* with ADD do not have a *disorder*, they are

> simply different, maybe even have an advantage. I deeply resent

> being referred to as a *Disorder* but I don't go around attacking

> people for their choice of words when I know they are just trying to

> understand people's differences and the causes. Just like a Blue-

> Blue eye gene causes blue eyes, we can ask why and find out without

> being attacked. It is not *normal* to be an albino, but no one

> accuses someone of being a bigot if they are looking for what causes

> that. Unless we use the term natural in the bell curve sense, with

> those being on the edges of the curve un-natural, there is really

> nothing on this earth that isn't natural, since everything here, is

> at some point of nature.

>

> Hormones are a large part of our sexuality, sexual behavior, and

> attraction (Do we need citations on this?). Of course one would

> suspect that hormones will have an impact on sexual behavior,

> heterosexual or homosexual. I would like to see just one study that

> concludes that hormones do NOT have any effect at all on sexual

> behavior.

>

> Jan²

>

>

>> >

>> > Gene,

>> >

>>>> > > > ³And, the fundamental question that is being asked, however

> poorly --

>>>> > > > " what causes homosexuality " -- is something that I do not

> object to.²

>> >

>>> > > What causes heterosexuality?

>> >

>> > Isn't that the same question?

>> >

>> > Chris

>> > --

>> > The Truth About Cholesterol

>> > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

>> > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

> ³Dang...Gene....MANY things we do in life are judgments.²

>

> Well, Dang ­ how in the world are you interpreting anything I say as

> disagreeing with that. However, the point was made that the discussion was

> scientific, and I pointed out that, no, because of certain presuppositions and

> terminology, people were being judged. And there is a term for people who

> judge blacks/women/jews/homosexuals negatively because of who they are.

> Œbigot¹.

>

> ³If we choose one thing over another thing..even simple things like the

> color of a shirt we are going to wear..it is a judgment. If we approach this

> from a scientific point of view...and grant you..I'm no scientist, the female

> body is designed to " fit " the male body. Anything outside of that would be

> considered " abnormal " . ³

>

> You are clearly a student of science. Actually, this is pretty hilarious. So,

> for instance, going to church would be considered ³abnormal²

>

> ³ I think it is unfair that a man cannot experience the " joys " of childbirth.

> But, on that same note...if a man were to conceive..that would be " abnormal " .

> We live in a world full of " abnormalities " that is the way it is. ³

>

> You know, I am not a homosexual myself, but I trust that homosexuals who do

> practice their craft don¹t have a problem in fitting their bodies to one

> another. I do enjoy that you feel so justified in judging people by god¹s law.

> I¹d say that you are the one who is the abomination in his eyes, that is if he

> existed.

>

> ³ I don't see how you can justify calling someone a " bigot " simply because

> they disagree with your thoughts. ³

>

> I¹d agree with that statement and obviously I don¹t call someone a bigot

> simply because they disagree with my thoughts. I do call someone a bigot when

> they express sentiments that are, well, bigoted.

>

> ³ I applaud Jane...I think she makes a very good statement. You have a

> liberal point of view...and that is ok. Others on here have a more

> conservative point of view, and that is ok.²

>

> At one point in time, what you say here could have been applied to

> discrimination against black people. Sure ­ on one level these were based on

> differences of opinion, but the attitudes were bigoted.

>

> ³While others...will jump at the opportunity to debase and offend others

> because they disagree with them. This is an open board, and no one...should

> be calling others names. Actually, looking at the dictionary....bigotry

> applies to intolerance in matters of religion, race, and politics. It says

> nothing about homosexuality. This may actually shock you, but I have many

> friends who are homosexuals, and some are even my best friends....I might

> add...and I am a Bible believing born again Christian.

> It is no crime for someone to voice their opinion, and they should be allowed

> to do so without being attacked. ³

>

> If you voice bigoted hateful sentiments, and you cloak them in superstition,

> you¹re a bigot, and I am totally justified in calling you on it if you do it

> in a public forum.