maddogdrivethru.net

Good on 'em.

Agreed. Homosexuality and sexual identity disorders clearly have no purpose in nature and would be selected against by evolution.

I never understood why it hurt someone to consider it an illness. We have so many mutes, blind and other people with permanent illnesses, diseases and conditions and they aren't insulted from them.

They are also highly tolerated. Heck, it's argued it's not a choice, it's what you're born with. So what's the problem? They should consider themselves lucky when they don't have any more seriously life threatening or incapacitating diseases. I know I am. I think most of us are born with some kind of disability or disease - increased probability for heart disease, poor eyesight, poor balance, etc.

Most of us don't make it a matter of pride, it just is what it is and people need to tolerate it, not embrace it.

Well . . . not exactly. There are fish in which "homosexuality" is clearly an adaptation, as in: mechanisms to induce a temporary period of males acting like females allow males to survive and grow big enough to become alphas.

People have suggested that for male homos at least, it might be an adaptation something like "helpers at the nest." Because human offspring are so god damned helpless and parasitic, making MORE of them is often NOT the most fit thing to do whereas "recruiting" more help with them IS the most fit thing to do.

It remains an open question, but there are plenty of hypotheses with some empirical support to leave open the idea that at least some of the developmental pathways that lead to homosexual proclivity are adaptations. Hell, the evolutionary medicine folks have models in which many symptoms of ailments if not whole "DISEASES" are adaptations!

Is Depression an Adaptation?

Stress as Adaptation

Hmm. Actually, among those who know anything about selection, human origins, etc, homosexuality might have a low frequency genetic equilibrium caused by the inclusive-fitness effect of having a close relative who is not engaged in reproduction and therefore defending other members of his or her own lineage.

Also when one is bandying rather clearly defined (although possibly pseudoscientific) pyschological terms about "disorders" and equating homosexuality with a disorder, disease, or mental illness, is an obvious attempt to dress up garden variety bigotry in scientific sounding language.

I agree that the Italian is free to say what she wants and should not have been charged. [SARCASM MODE ENGAGED] It's a free world and any dumb wop should be allowed to say whatever bigoted thing her hydrocephalic brain may generate.[SARCASM MODE DISENGAGED] But she was just plain talking nonsense and talking off the top of her head.

Ah. I see that Anthropoid made essentially the same point about selection. Good on you, Anthro.

The problem at the moment is that you have essentially a segment of the country who have lived historically with a target painted, by dipshits, on their backs. They're finally seeing a little more liberty and less boot-on-the-neck and they're understandably joyous about it. Then there's the minority of the minority who are foaming at the mouth and whose heads have been filled with critical theory horseshit for whom the concept of moderation is suspended in favor of attention-seeking. In short, evangelizing for homosexuality. Overcommitted to an overhyped idea makes them just like half the rest of the damb planet. Which is why it is fitting to mostly keep an eye on the damb planet and otherwise not become socially engaged with them.

I'd even say that "A person who likes to imagine they are actually the other sex, else some exotic 'gender' is not exactly 'disease." Being convinced that these fantasies are so important that you need undergo medical treatment to live them out is moving into a gray zone in my opinion.

Just because alcoholics like to fantasize about themselves being drunk doesn't mean that the best thing for them to do is be drunk all the time. I have an imaginary line in my mind between "modifications to self which can be carried out through 'natural' mechanisms, e.g., learning, physical fitness training, practicing a craft of some sort, changing diet or sleep-wake rhythms . . ." versus modifications which require medical intervention "tattoos, piercings, elective hormone therapy and surgeries." And yes, I'd include things like plastic surgery in general, cosmetic orthodontics, etc. It is all in a gray area to me whose ethicality is under the same question as "would it be ethical to just insure that all winos had plenty of alcohol so they could just stay drunk all the time?"

I agree. Most gays I know were just like me in every other way except that.



Was there also a thing about early homosexuality being often a part of the shamanistic tradition?

There is some crazy fucked up shit in "traditional cultures."

Tsembaga Marang if I recall . . . one of the thousands of tribes on Papua New Guinea. Ethnography in the mid-20th century revealed some fairly abhorrent practices.

Many of the societies on that island have sex-segregation and "sex-discrimination / misoygyny" beliefs and practices that make the Taliban seem like progressivist hipsters.

Also lots of weird initiation rituals. Generally a group would initiate a group of boys/young men who were part of an age cohort (say every guy within a 5 village radius between the ages of 10 and 13 or something). Sleep deprivation, hunger, thirst, exercise to exhaustion, beatings, harassment and every other form of "hazing" you can imagine, plus: you have to drink an adult mans semen by means of fellating him. Without this "seeding" impossible for the younger one to grow up to be full fledged adult.

Lots of penis torture too, sub-incision, whipping the genitals with stinging nettles, etc.

Just your basic "Traditional Culture" on steroids!

AFAIK those nordic-resistance-nazis were not banned because of their homo tendencies or their initiation rituals. And no reference to penis torture and genital whipping or other genital mutilation.

But it is always nice to learn something new.