Lion of the Blogosphere

The continuing normalization of homosexuality

Obama wants it to be illegal to counsel young homosexuals into being heterosexual.

Yesterday someone wrote a comment about how just a few decades ago, the standard thinking among atheists was that homosexuality was a type of mental illness. [Riflemnan clarifies: A few decades ago it wasn’t just “crazy religious people” who thought that homosexuals were not normal. The standard thinking even among atheists was that homosexuality was a type of mental illness.] Soon, it will be illegal to treat homosexuality as if it were any sort of problem at all.

Maybe we should ban all sorts of mental health therapy. Does it not stigmatize people with depression to try to treat them as if there is something wrong with them? Who’s to say what’s “normal” and what’s not? Maybe the horrible stigma is the reason why depressed people commit suicide at much higher rates than the non-depressed.

* * *

“Shabba_Ranks” writes in a comment:

lion- as you eloquently and presciently wrote over a year ago, the war is over. The gays won.

There is amazing power in controlling the mainstream media. You can alter the way people think. That is why I agree with the French law about banning models with a BMI under 18. You remove those images, and people will stop thinking that a BMI of under 18 is desirable.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 9, 2015 at 9:09 am

64 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This is all a very, very big deal but following this trail of bread crumbs takes you places few want to go. But when you get to the end, you realize Fred Phelps was right.

    thrasymachus33308

    April 9, 2015 at 9:20 am

    • But when you get to the end, you realize Fred Phelps was right.

      Homosexuality will be illegal, or it will be illegal to criticize. This will become clear to everyone soon enough.

      Samson J.

      April 9, 2015 at 10:52 am

  2. OT, mostly: had a conversation the other day where the collective wise-men at the bar posited that there seemed to be fewer (obvious) flamer flight attendants than in the past. Anyone else notice, or think they notice, such a trend? Question was raised whether the hissy-fit a few years ago by the flamer flight attendant might not be a contributing factor (assuming the perception is real).

    I work with someone who is clearly mentally ill (I don’t know what, I suspect bi-polar) and is getting treatment. I’m not sure this woman’s problem isn’t mostly a function of being in a workplace and expected to do focused activities each day all day that isn’t her real problem. She likely wouldn’t be considered off her head if she were simply flitting around her house all day. Thus raising the question, is mental health categorization a function of needing to prepare/filter and categorize people for employment, at least in part (not counting things like schizo)?

    Curle

    April 9, 2015 at 9:27 am

    • there seemed to be fewer (obvious) flamer flight attendants than in the past. Anyone else notice, or think they notice, such a trend?

      I wouldn’t notice, but it’s an interesting question. I think I’ve observed a decrease in rainbow bumper stickers compared to 5-10 years ago, but like you I’m not sure.

      By contrast, the number of small businesses celebrating “gay pride” month has definitely increased. My wife and I had a conversation last year about the fact that “pride” is almost becoming something of a religious holiday for some people.

      Samson J.

      April 9, 2015 at 10:51 am

      • Rainbow bumper stickers used to be how they found their hookups. Now, they just download Grindr and can sodomize random strangers without putting a sticker on their car. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ross’s father hasn’t written a paper on it to go along with the one he wrote about lesbian nuns.

        destructure

        April 9, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    • Yes to your 2nd paragraph’s question; imagine Treebeard or Tom Bombadil having to hold down an office job in order to survive.

      garr

      April 9, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    • FWIW, for a while I worked with a male Flight Attendant who had done two tours in Iraq. They’re definitely not all “flamers”. The pay is OK, benefits outstanding, and you can work a second job, in some cases even full time. It’s actually a pretty good deal overall; I’m surprised it doesn’t attract more men, especially those who own or want to start a business.

      J1

      April 9, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    • the answer to the second question is usually no. you may be confusing the diagnosing that non-psychiatrists do all the time with genuine mental illness. that is being a “bad fit” is pathologized by armchair psychiatrists. people are different, sometimes very different, and that doesn’t mean any of them are crazy.

      there used to be a term “endogenous depression” but there’s no such thing. there are good reasons to be depressed or anxious, but there are no good reason to hear voices or be manic or wash your hands 100 times a day, so these really are pathological.

      of course nowadays every nerd thinks he has ass burgers and every idiot thinks he has ADD. ass burgers and autism are real and unmistakably neurological conditions and are extremely rare. ADD probably doesn’t exist.

      Robert Gabriel Mugabe

      April 9, 2015 at 7:06 pm

  3. lion- as you eloquently and presciently wrote over a year ago, the war is over. The gays won.

    Shabba_Ranks

    April 9, 2015 at 9:29 am

    • “the war is over. The gays won.”

      The problem with that is that the whole “LGBTQ+” position happens to be contrary to biological reality. Convincing the world of things that are false does not make them true.

      Dan

      April 9, 2015 at 11:34 am

      • When you proclaim as true things that happen to be false, your victory is never solid because reality keeps popping hatefully through.

        Dan

        April 9, 2015 at 11:37 am

    • Not in Dar al-Islam.

      Ric

      April 9, 2015 at 7:42 pm

  4. The internal contradictions of homosexual activists were revealed as early as the 1980s. Life versus political correctness: http://lgbtqamerica.blogspot.com/2011/01/80s-aids.html

    Robert Arvanitis

    April 9, 2015 at 10:21 am

  5. I think the real take away from that article isn’t that Obama wants gay conversion therapy illegal, but he wants “trans”-whatever therapy illegal too. The idea that a guy with a penis shouldn’t be treated to get over his delusion that he’s a woman is crazy.

    Mike Street Station

    April 9, 2015 at 10:30 am

    • Right. “Trans” nonsense is grouped with the rest. The number of people in the whole history of the world that have changed genders successfully is zero.

      Any doctor would would perform such a surgery on a child or any parent who would enable it belongs in prison, for causing permanent destruction of crucial parts of a child’s body. A child is being permanently sterilized, forever robbed of the ability to have children before even reaching adulthood. The number of intelligent conversations being had in public on this are zero. Is this what it was like in Hitler’s Germany, or in the Soviet Union, where lies were seemingly so obvious and yet the groupthink could not be overcome?

      Positives: Maybe since the number of people who actually do want to permanently sterilize their own children cannot be large, this is an outlet for leftist insanity.

      Negatives: Our political leadership, or media, and increasingly our public, are so profoundly disconnected from reality that I can’t really see how things can end up okay.

      Dan

      April 9, 2015 at 11:27 am

      • “Our political leadership, or media, and increasingly our public, are so profoundly disconnected from reality that I can’t really see how things can end up okay.”

        But that is what happens to aristocrats for whom there is never a consequence for their actions.

        People get disconnected from reality when there are never any consequences. It is true for the welfare folks, too.

        not too late

        April 10, 2015 at 5:13 pm

  6. “You remove those images, and people will stop thinking that a BMI of under 18 is desirable.”

    Why would we want people to stop thinking this? My wife is 167 cm, 50 kg and looks perfect. I wouldn’t want her to be any shorter just to get that BMI over 18!

    Kyo

    April 9, 2015 at 10:47 am

    • A BMI of less than 18 is a hideous skeleton. It’s funny, although I dislike making common cause with anything feminist, having daughters does make me want to protect them from a lot of mass-media body-image foolishness.

      Samson J.

      April 9, 2015 at 11:42 am

      • There is NO pressure on women (or anyone else for that matter) to be thin and healthy. None. 30% of Americans are obese. The hand-wringing over a perfectly healthy BMI of 18 is hilarious, when the reality is that EAT LESS! should be screamed from the rooftops.

        Avid NPR listener

        April 9, 2015 at 12:23 pm

      • Based on her publicly available info, model Marisa Miller has a BMI of 16.7. Hardly a hideous skeleton…

        Most famous models aren’t anywhere close a BMI of 18. The exception would be Kate Upton, who is at 18.7, not far above the cutoff for “hideous skeleton”

        muelleauzz

        April 10, 2015 at 4:22 pm

      • Based on her publicly available info, model Marisa Miller has a BMI of 16.7.

        Based on her Google photos, this woman is sickeningly thin.

        Samson J.

        April 10, 2015 at 9:50 pm

      • She is majorly hot.

        Sagi Is My Guru

        April 11, 2015 at 7:52 am

  7. All gay all the time is just another status competition.

    It reminds me of the show Fear Factor. Do something you are really grossed out about (e.g. associate or pretend to accept gays) and win a prize.

    jjbees

    April 9, 2015 at 11:31 am

  8. Natural law wins and it is more horrifying than any of us can imagine. If a people come to disassociate sex with reproduction, thereby having a far-below-replacement fertility rate as we see throughout the West, Nature will simply replace those people with others. Those who will replace us, hopefully Haredi or Mormons but more likely Africans and Islamists, will be the ones who have not disassociated sex with reproduction.

    The social justicy wins seem resounding but they will be temporary. In time the force of demographic reality will crush whole civilizations, and these sexual revolutionaries will be reviled as destroyers of civilization. Obama is stamping his name forever in history. To be fair, this started more than 40 years ago and does not belong all on him, but he is trying hard to emblazon his name on it.

    A possible out would be some kind of assisted reproduction or purposeful maintenance of the best parts of humanity that one might envision in a sci-fi future, but the scale is peanuts today, not coming close to replacing the humanity that is lost. And in any case it is impossible to even go there if you cannot openly discuss the problem.

    Dan

    April 9, 2015 at 11:54 am

    • I do not say this as some wild-eyed lunatic. I just say this as someone who, from investing, understands the mathematical reality of fertility rates and compounding numbers. Most people do not want to let their minds go there, but given the current low death rates around the world, one thing you can be reasonably sure of is that existing children will grow up nonexisting children will not.

      Dan

      April 9, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    • Most people predicted the invention of effective birth control would be a major win for civilization, because it would allow controlled population growth and existing wealth and resources to be spread out among fewer, increasing GDP per capita.

      This might have happened except that Western countries just substituted native young people with immigrants, so now our populations are higher than ever.

      Ron

      April 9, 2015 at 12:45 pm

      • Religions were and are what keep civilizations going.

        Every left-leaning pro-LGBT SWPL is the progeny of a hardcore religious prole if you go back 2 or 3 generations. (Maybe 4 or 5 generations for NYC area SWPL Jews and WASPS)

        Ron

        April 9, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    • That’s why immigration is so important to the left. If our immigration rates and proceeded at pre-1965 levels, liberals (in the modern sense) would be a much smaller percentage of the population since they just don’t have replacement levels of children. Our population would have fewer poor, be more middle class, and the political range of the Democratic Party would probably be more Scoop Jackson-like, rather than tilting to Elizabeth Warren.

      Mike Street Station

      April 9, 2015 at 1:47 pm

  9. Typo in the first line: “standard thinking among atheists” should be “standard thinking among psychiatrists.”

    Mark Caplan

    April 9, 2015 at 11:55 am

    • Actuallly I meant atheists, but perhaps I did a bad job of explaining what I was thinking.

      The point was that it wasn’t just crazy religious people who thought that homosexuals were not normal.

      • You could edit – A few decades ago it wasn’t just “crazy religious people” who thought that homosexuals were not normal. The standard thinking even among atheists was that homosexuality was a type of mental illness.

        Rifleman

        April 9, 2015 at 1:55 pm

      • You are right. And it is also true that no one ever thought homos were normal no matter how you define normal. Evidence shows homos have high rates of being mentally ill and it isn’t just cuz “nobody likes me”. People don’t like crazies cuz they are weird. Yes, yes, there are plenty of nice successful gays, but they are outliers and we all know it and so do they. Life expectancy for a gay man is 20 years less than a straight man. Every culture on the planet thought it was weird and abnormal although not all hated it as much as others.

        not too late

        April 10, 2015 at 5:21 pm

  10. Slightly O/T: Lion, high status areas in NYC are saturated with single women. Lower status, Prole areas are saturated with single men, and of course, certain NAM sections have very large contingent of undesirable women for Whites.

    http://visualizing.nyc/nyc-zip-codes-singles-map/

    Despite Chelsea being a gay haven, women outnumber men. I’m not surprised. Women are attracted to status and the cool factor. Your neighborhood of Hell’s Kitchen is a overrun by single men and I’m not surprised either. Hell’s Kitchen is relatively cheap and uncool, even when compared to crap sections like Kips Bay.

    Guido Staten Island is an Italian sausage town!

    JS

    April 9, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    • Actually, I think the surplus of men in Hell’s Kitchen are gay men. Hell’s Kitchen is actually the gayest neighborhood in NYC even though people normally think of the Village and Chelsea as being gay.

      There’s also a jail in Hell’s Kitchen (on 54th st between 8th and 9th avenues), which may be boosting the male population.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      April 9, 2015 at 1:37 pm

      • I think the real reason has to do with a combination of things: The strange location of Hell’s Kitchen, the type of men who live there, and its lack of cool amenities and quality housing stock that keeps the ladies from moving there. It’s slightly north of the Port Authority, which seems to impede any development that attracts the SWPL types. And since it isn’t a neighborhood for finance guys like Kips Bay (men with money attract women no doubt), hence an oversaturation of “unsexy” men in that neighborhood.

        The more things change, the more remain the same.

        Welcome to 21st Century America, and NYC!

        JS

        April 9, 2015 at 1:58 pm

      • Hell’s Kitchen has a cool location in the Theater District and lots of bars and restaurants. And convenient walking distance to midtown office buildings between 8th and 5th avenues. Really, it’s just that the Theater District attracts a lot of gay men.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 9, 2015 at 2:05 pm

      • Chelsea has a lot of gay men, just as much as Hell’s Kitchen, but the abundance of women living in that neighborhood has to do with its location and the type of amenities being offered. Yes, the theater district and its uncool bars and restaurants aren’t enticing to the average young woman.

        JS

        April 9, 2015 at 2:11 pm

      • Notice in that article, the writer is a clueless “blue pill” guy and not a red one (women think). He’s wondering why neighborhoods with status are saturated with women and not men, and why single women are attracted to those neighborhoods, despite a lower population of single men.

        I’ll let the Manosphere fill in the rest of the story!

        JS

        April 9, 2015 at 2:20 pm

  11. OT: another example of police misconduct.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/07/officer-michael-slager-shoots-man-in-back-video_n_7021134.html

    Forget about race for a second. The important facts are a) he shot an unarmed fleeing individual in the back multiple times, b) then lied about it multiple times, and c) the chance existence of a cell phone video was the only way to demonstrate that he was lying.

    a) and b) happen together occasionally, b) regarding lesser constitutional violations happens frequently. How many bad apples can there be before people decide the whole bag is rotten, I wonder.

    swanknasty

    April 9, 2015 at 1:15 pm

  12. Regarding the progress of normalization of the the formerly deviant I guess that polygamy and pedophilia are coming right up and after that maybe human sacrifice and cannibalism.

    Jim

    April 9, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    • Don’t leave out bestiality!

      Graf von Jung

      April 10, 2015 at 12:10 pm

      • Right now, the usual suspects are furious when polygamy is compared to same-sex marriage, but they have done u-turns in the past.

        My guess is that diverse immigrants from Africa will provide pretext. Disparate Impact will be used as the legal tool.

        WRB

        April 10, 2015 at 12:50 pm

  13. “The standard thinking even among atheists was that homosexuality was a type of mental illness.”

    Well, (obligate male) homosexuality is a mental illness by any sensible definition of the word. That doesn’t mean treating it can be successful, no more than treating someone who lost a limb will cause one to grow back.

    Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs | JayMan’s Blog

    Transsexualism is also a mental illness, but at least “gender identity disorder” is recognized as one. It’s not clear if the solution is to perform surgery and not try to treat the illness.

    JayMan

    April 9, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    • “obligate” homosexuality is UNKOWN in the animal world. there’s plenty of bisexual behavior, but no homo exclusively behavior. i know because i heard a gay scientist on the BBC say so. 😉

      Robert Gabriel Mugabe

      April 9, 2015 at 7:16 pm

  14. The public’s growing acceptance of gays and lesbians in the cultural mainstream is a good example of how societal elites are able to influence people’s sensibilities. I think greater tolerance of homosexuality is mostly a good thing, but sooner or later the movement will face diminishing returns for its efforts, if that hasn’t already happened. Meanwhile, President Obama is already moving on to the next frontier of social acceptance:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0409/Will-White-House-s-gender-neutral-restroom-start-a-national-trend

    The beginning of the end for the urinal?

    IBC

    April 9, 2015 at 5:15 pm

  15. lion hasn’t commented on the very recent all out attempt to normalize “transexuals”.

    i’m not buying that…EVER. as long as they don’t bring their gayness on you you can tolerate homos, but just being in the same room with a transexual is stomach churning.

    and transexuality is STILL in the DSM. isn’t it?

    Robert Gabriel Mugabe

    April 9, 2015 at 7:13 pm

    • One reason that the pickup arts are a dangerous game. Mix low lighting, playing the ‘numbers’ game, over-eagerness and too much alcohol, and your gender-dar might malfunction. You might never live down a screwup.

      Dan

      April 9, 2015 at 10:41 pm

    • It’s been changed in DSM-V from “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria” so as to make the term less stigmatizing. Also, one of the key criteria is distress over one’s condition, so as to make it seem as though the real problem is emotional distress, not a discrepancy between one’s sexual phenotype and the gender one feels one “really” is.

      Hermes

      April 9, 2015 at 11:28 pm

    • I think it has to stay in so that treatment can be covered. If it is considered normal, then why should insurance pay for such extreme plastic surgery?

      not too late

      April 10, 2015 at 5:27 pm

  16. To be fair Christie outlawed gay conversion therapy in New Jersey.

    The problem is that a lot of parents were brow-beating their children into going.

    ScarletNumber

    April 9, 2015 at 9:31 pm

  17. The only people who are truly duped into thinking that BMI 16-17 women are beautiful are young girls. Straight men are ruled by their boners, and adult women usually (but not always) have enough life experience to know that most straight men don’t want anything to do with a BMI <17 woman with no curves. Young girls don't know any better and they truly believe that the BMI 16-17 haute couture models are the ones that most men desire. Little do they know that those models are selected by gay male and straight female fashion designers to appeal to women, not men.

    SC

    April 9, 2015 at 11:15 pm

  18. Lion is interpreting Obama’s remarks in the most sinister way possible so as to make his rendition of events as consistent with his pre-conceptions about there being a liberal conspiracy to desensitise people to homosexuality and to promote it. The Lion is not an impartial blogger and this is a right-leaning blog so this is expected and not exactly condemnable. Condemnable however are those that read this blog post and take Lion’s word as gospel. There is a difference between questioning the mainstream opinion on an issue and adopting a point of view that is diametrically different or almost.

    I don’t interpret Obama’s remarks as necessarily reflecting a step forward in a premeditated, planned agenda to normalise homosexuality. He is opposing a fraudulent and psychologically damaging treatment protocol that ‘counsellors’ have only been able to peddle because such treatment isn’t delivered in the form of a pill or tablet, otherwise it would have been within the jurisdiction of the FDA.

    At least drug companies treating adults, adolescents and children with inattention live up to a standard of evidence. These ‘counsellors’ don’t. Their advertising frequently suggests that homosexuals can stop homosexual feelings and live satisfied lives as sexually active heterosexuals. How is one supposed to know whether this ‘treatment’ has had any effect on a ‘patient’? Does one present arousing visual stimuli of homoerotic material to people that were formerly homosexual that claim to be straight and measure blood flow to the penis? This would be a methodical approach to measuring the efficacy of such treatment but it still wouldn’t be good enough for me, because even if you show a gay male, for instance, homoerotic material, there is no guarantee that that person will find the material sexually appealing just because he is gay.

    These are arguments that rational laypeople can understand. Many people on the right, however, don’t seem to want to understand them. The hostility to fraudulent treatments for homosexual tendencies has a precedent in other domains of treating pathology assuming homosexuality is an illness, which is questionable.

    Research on altering sexual behaviour is important because there is a sub-group of gay people that are miserable being gay and that are so impervious to reassurances that homosexuals can live otherwise typical lives that the only way for them to be comfortable with themselves would be intervention to make them straight. This is sad.

    Jack

    April 9, 2015 at 11:28 pm

    • The standard behavior among mental health professionals is to try to treat everything they consider deviant behavior even if there’s no evidence that such treatments work. There’s probably a lot of evidence that psychotherapy is pretty much useless for treating everything.

      So the noteworthy takeaway is that homosexual behavior is now considered “normal” rather than deviant behavior that the mental health profession should try to treat. And for those therapists who don’t get that message, Obama will make their viewpoint illegal.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      April 10, 2015 at 10:25 am

  19. I’m a psychiatry resident. I wish homosexuality had never been in the DSM. Not because I’m pro-gay (though I don’t think homosexuality is really properly conceived of as a mental illness,) but because its former presence there is constantly used as a cudgel with which to browbeat psychiatry, and the history of our society in general, into a state of perpetual guilt over our allegedly horrific and shameful past. Not a week goes by in which I don’t overhear some comment by one of my culturally left-wing colleagues (i.e., all of them except me) about how the DSM used to list homosexuality as a disorder (the horror, the horror) as evidence of how disgraceful our field was until recently and how far we still have to go.

    Hermes

    April 9, 2015 at 11:34 pm

  20. Maybe ….

    I notice Robert Smigel aka Triumph the Insult Comic dog and SNL “TV Funhouse” has tons of fun with calling dorky White guys gay as Triumph, and finding the “Ambigously Gay Duo Gary and Ace” well, gay. Leftist comics still find that White people like to laugh at gays. A lot. Smigel would not do it if it did not get laughs.

    As late as the late 1980s in the Kevin Costner movie “No Way Out” it was considered a mark of the bad guy for the obsequious aide to Gene Hackman’s character to be a poorly closeted gay man. J Edgar Hoover was marked by Leftists as even worse for being well, gay and thus a pervert.

    These feelings of disgust and humor are built in, and the more Islam gains a foothold here and dominates Europe, the more gays will be treated as fairly subhuman, because people do what Muslims want or they tend to kill you. And I see no desire or will or ability to kick Muslims out. Even non-Muslim Africans don’t have a high opinion of gays and they are a very rapidly growing segment of the US population — Black population gains are almost entirely due to African immigrants.

    whiskeysplace

    April 10, 2015 at 1:04 am

  21. I wonder what the next frontier will be. Homosexuality denial laws? Racial quotas in arrests and prison sentences? California-style consent laws at the federal level? A strict 50% quota for women when hiring math professors?

    We are dealing with the sort of people whose life is without meaning unless they are coercing someone, somewhere.

    WRB

    April 10, 2015 at 8:53 am

  22. A problem I have with this approach towards the topic of causes of homosexuality is that a very simple transformation in the choice of words can reveal all kinds of ridiculous notions that many in the conversation entertain.

    If we talk about “androphilia” (attraction towards men) and “gynephilia” (” ” women) instead of “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality,” questions like “what causes the pathology of homosexuality?” morph into “what causes the pathologies of androphilia in a male and of gynephilia in a female?” The question is now VERY different. Whereas before, “is homosexuality genetic?” seems like an non-obvious question with an unknown answer, now “is androphilia genetic?” is utterly obvious with an answer of YES. Not having a y-chromosome is *highly* predictive of being an androphile. It’s clear that the androphilia/gynephilia axis is closely aligned or correlated with the female/male axis.

    So what does a world without this correlation look like, a world where having a y-chromosome predicts nothing about androphilia? In this world, 50% of men would be androphiles, 50% gynephiles, and likewise with women. Going back to our original words, 50% of the population would be heterosexual, and 50% of the population would be homosexual. It’s clear then that natural selection has very potently tweaked the distribution of sexuality so as to make heterosexuality much more prevalent. The reason is obvious (heterosexuals have more children), but it also reminds us that natural selection is a satisficer, and not an optimizer. As long as extrapersonal (i.e. non-sexually attractive) forces exist in society so as to encourage the heterosexual union, less than 100% of the population will be heterosexual.

    That implies that societies with longer and stronger histories of homosexual stigmatization will have more of a decorrelation between gender and sexuality, and societies with no homosexual stigmatization will have a higher correlation between gender and sexuality.

    In other words, if you think homosexual orientations should cease existing, then the de-stigmatization of it is the most likely thing to bring about that outcome.

    Sebastian Zearing

    April 10, 2015 at 1:20 pm

    • Gay marriage could very well reduce the number of gays in the future. Previously, a gay man would often marry a woman, have kids, and propagate the genes. Now he will marry a man and stay childless.

      BehindTheLines

      April 10, 2015 at 4:17 pm

      • Because of its distribution, it is more likely congenital like Down Syndrome, not hereditary like blue eyes.

        not too late

        April 10, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    • If you would like to hear more from me on this topic, please go here: https://sebzear.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/sexuality-androphilia-gynephilia-and-gay-genes/

      Sebastian Zearing

      April 10, 2015 at 7:55 pm

    • quality comment. I don’t know if I agree with you, but that is certainly a reasonable way of looking at it.

      Shabba_Ranks

      April 10, 2015 at 9:09 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: