While you are right about how gay men are treated, it is just an example of a more-or-less universal trait among humans: discrimination. Anyone who is different is targeted, and difference can always be found by someone who wishes to discriminate. This is a human problem, and it applies to gay men, and to the whole LGBT community, fat people, thin people, fascists, communists, religious people, non-religious people, people with dark coloured skin, disabled people, foreign people, and so forth.

I don't know how bullying and discrimination can be stopped. We (humans) seem to like doing it too much. I would love to read suggestions to improve matters....

I sort of like being something of an outlier. When I was a young man (50 years ago) being openly gay made one enough of an outlier to feel good about it. These days... I don't know what one would have to do to be an outlier, what with 62 genders, and such nonsense. A gay friend suggested I be a gay Catholic -- he thought that would be fairly outré. Maybe, but I don't want to be a Catholic unless I can be the pope.

Being a gay socialist atheist works to some extent, especially among Chamber of Commerce types--of whom I know none. One could pretend to be a lobbyist for the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). That will make one persona non grata quicker than you can say "De gustibus non est disputandum". But that's a bit too outré for anybody these days. Ah! For the good old days of ancient Athens! (Relax. I'm just being provocative here.)



Thin people? I thought one could never be too thin or too rich. Has that changed just recently?

You have "issues"? Great. I hope they are really controversial.

A gay friend suggested I be a gay Catholic -- he thought that would be fairly outré. Maybe, but I don't want to be a Catholic unless I can be the pope. — Bitter Crank

Start wearing a MAGA hat. Communist, gay Trump supporter. You'd be unique, the one and only.

There still remain people in the world that agree with the discrimination of other human beings just because their preferences are not the same as those doing the discriminating. Even politicians - Trump - are still evoking the idea that homosexuality is unclean.

Instead, they believe the best way to deal with it is to boycott it entirely. — GreyScorpio

Is Trump doing this?

Insert evidence here >.....................<

(Just addressing possible hyperbole. Your possibly intended message would be helped without it, I feel)

Homosexuality is contrary to evolution since it does not reproduce itself biologically. This is not to say that many homosexuals are not fine individuals with many features that would be favorable to evolution. Rather, without the ability to pass on genes biologically, by definition, homosexuality should not persist unless it is based on willpower and choice; epigenetic.

If you look any drug addiction, this shows that it is possible to become obsessive with behavior that are is natural, to the point where it appears almost instinctive. One can game the brain. Gay behavior, for example, is not sanitary. If we did not have artificial things like condoms and medications to act as prosthesis, nature would run it course and create a disease to correct this behavior.

Even if some gay individuals could develop a natural resistance, this is not passed forward biologically since this progressive change is not part of evolution. We do have choices but not all choices are natural with unnatural choices needing extra propping up. I am for free choice, but one needs to keep in mind what is natural and what is not natural so they can be objective.

Homosexuality is contrary to evolution since it does not reproduce itself biologically. — wellwisher

There is ample evidence of homosexual behavior across a variety of mammals and birds. For instance, some male black swans pair up for life, build nests, and then steal eggs from heterosexual nests which the two guys then hatch and raise. How do you fit that into evolution? Beats me. Maybe Mother Nature is more of a twisted sister than we thought?

I don't think that homosexuality is inherited. But if it were, we know that many people who, for extended periods of time identify as homosexual, have quite successfully reproduced. My guess is that it is epigenetic in some way. But... nobody has figured it out so far, and it hasn't been for a lack of a search effort.

Gay behavior, for example, is not sanitary. If we did not have artificial things like condoms and medications to act as prosthesis, nature would run it course and create a disease to correct this behavior. — wellwisher

Life is unsanitary.

We are immersed in a sea of bacteria, viruses, fungi, pollen, and parasites. Gay sexual activity is generally no more unsanitary than straight sexual activity. Of course, disease patterns are related to specific types of behavior--this is true for straights and gays alike. If one has 50 partners a year (some people do) one is likely to encounter more pathogens than if one has only 1 partner. And it depends on what they are doing, and how. Sexually transmitted diseases are common infections around the world. And so are fecal bacterial infections common around the world, as well as blood borne infections, food borne, air borne, and water borne infections.

Sensible people -- gay, straight, and bisexual -- take care to reduce the probability of infection. One can reduce the chance of sexual infection with care, one can't eliminate it except by excluding sex altogether. The same goes for food borne disease. One can avoid promiscuous eating, but eventually an innocent looking bag of romaine salad contaminated with E. coli will strike you down.

We do have choices but not all choices are natural with unnatural choices needing extra propping up. I am for free choice, but one needs to keep in mind what is natural and what is not natural so they can be objective. — wellwisher

"The only unnatural act is an impossible act" when it comes to human behavior. Good heavens, man -- look at the range of everyday activities in which people engage. Hardly any of it is entirely "natural". Some of it is downright perverse, and I'm just talking about the people who obsessively grow grass and then cut it down when it is 5 inches high. Totally perverted. Vegans? Working class Republicans? PETA? Conceptual artists? Haute couture? Nouvelle cuisine? People with more cars in their driveways than there are people in the house? Southern Baptists? Catholics? Moslems? Hindus? All unnatural, sick perverts.

It's astounding what reasons we contrive to explain and justify our aversion to, and peculiar fascination with, the sexual behavior of others.

Re: "Homosexuality is contrary to evolution since it does not reproduce itself biologically."

Assuming this is true (I recall reading articles about evolution disputing this assumption, but that was a long time ago and I don't know where to find it.), but assuming it is true, how does it support an argument opposed to homosexuality? Are we assuming that actions that do not support biological reproduction are bad?

I could see how one might use it as an argument favoring homosexuality over heterosexuality, given that the human population has grown many times higher than what it has been for most of human existence and there's strong evidence we are consuming the Earth's resources faster than they are being replenished. Personally, I'm straight and not advocating this argument, but just pointing out that there seems to me to be a chasm in the logic when this argument is so often used against homosexuality.

Homosexuality is contrary to evolution since it does not reproduce itself biologically. This is not to say that many homosexuals are not fine individuals with many features that would be favorable to evolution. Rather, without the ability to pass on genes biologically, by definition, homosexuality should not persist unless it is based on willpower and choice; epigenetic. — wellwisher

There are plenty of genetic conditions that result in an inability to reproduce, yet they persist, unimpeded by evolution.

If you look any drug addiction, this shows that it is possible to become obsessive with behavior that are is natural, to the point where it appears almost instinctive. One can game the brain. — wellwisher

When did you choose to be straight? Were you in the back seat with Betty Sue and you weighed the pros and the cons and then decided to become aroused? I certainly didn't decide to be straight, so I don't see how I could suggest someone else choose to be gay.

Gay behavior, for example, is not sanitary. If we did not have artificial things like condoms and medications to act as prosthesis, nature would run it course and create a disease to correct this behavior. — wellwisher

Sanitary sex doesn't sound real interesting. Were you aware that the same sex acts performed by gay people are also performed by straight people and that sodomy isn't just a gay thing? Were you also aware that woman on woman sex does not involve nearly the fluid exchange as say, man on woman sex does? That being the case, perhaps you're an advocate for lesbianism.

If we did not have artificial things like condoms and medications to act as prosthesis, nature would run it course and create a disease to correct this behavior. — wellwisher

And yet homosexuality has persisted throughout the millennia without any medical assistance. I also don't follow your artificial/natural distinction, as it seems to take medical science out of evolution. I think evolution is all encompassing and that part of the evolution of humanity includes advancements in control over their environment.

There's also the who cares part of this as well. As in who cares why homosexuality is now safe. If it is, it is, regardless of whether it wouldn't be safe if we lived in a primitive society.

Even if some gay individuals could develop a natural resistance, this is not passed forward biologically since this progressive change is not part of evolution — wellwisher

Except that gay people do reproduce sometimes, straight people have anal sex, and some bisexual people have sex with straight people, which means the resistance does enter the gene pool. The world isn't divided so neatly into gays, straights, sodomites, and missionary only positioners.

"The only unnatural act is an impossible act" when it comes to human behavior. — Bitter Crank

Amen!

Everyone seems to know what "homosexual" means or what a homosexual is. I do not. On the not-very-often occasions I asked those that seemed to know, big surprise, they didn't. I worked with a very smart very gay social worker; when I asked him he quickly admitted there is no good definition.I take it all to mean that homosexuality, which was defined in DSM-1, 2 pathologically as a preponderance of practices and preference but that was dropped from the DSM c. 1973 (according to the internet), is pretty much what anyone says it is, whenever it pleases the to say it. Which is also my understanding of what marriage is.

I'm about your age and have concluded that a lot of the so-called truths that are my cultural heritage are in fact just political mandates of some kind, and either lack the substance they claimed to have, or are just plain false - lies. I echo what you wrote, above, and add that at some point is a life, a wise and mature person de-elevates "should" or "shouldn't" from his or her life, and thinks more in terms of "either I do it in this life, or it never, ever happens." For example, I used to worry - wonder - if it was safe to visit Peru. Now I'm merely content to acknowledge that I'm just not that interested in visiting Machu Picchu.

Anyway, do you have a good definition of homosexuality? Or it it just an indeterminate preponderance of practice and preference combined with self-identification?

I think that in these discussions it really isn't about defining exactly what it is. It seems to me these discussions are more about triggered emotions in response to it, and emotions are not real good at logic.

If it wasn't about triggered emotions, than why would anyone care what some others are consenting to and doing amongst themselves, as long as it does not impact me?

Everyone seems to know what "homosexual" means or what a homosexual is. I do not. On the not-very-often occasions I asked those that seemed to know, big surprise, they didn't. I worked with a very smart very gay social worker; when I asked him he quickly admitted there is no good definition — tim wood

I think the term "homosexual" is as well defined as any term. The term conveys meaning, and it's no more confusing to talk about the homosexual in the room as it is to talk about the chair in the room, despite both chairs and homosexuals having enough variations that we can't determine their essences.

Anyway, do you have a good definition of homosexuality? — tim wood

I pretty much restrict myself to talking about gay men, on this topic. Lesbians tend to be very touchy about men theorizing about lesbianism.

Alfred Kinsey set up a scale, 0-6, 0 = exclusively heterosexual, 6 = exclusively homosexual. The scale can be applied to both what one actually does sexually, and what one fantasizes about doing, or would like to do sexually. So, one definition of 'homosexual' would be "a person whose behavior and fantasies are exclusively focused on other persons of the same sex". They are 6 and 6. A heterosexual would be 0 and 0. In most surveys that I have seen, less than 3% of the population fits that definition of homosexual.



The significance of rating fantasies and behavior is that people who are discordant (fantasize about homosexual sex but behave heterosexually) are conflicted, and might benefit from resolving the difference between what they think about and what they do.

I define homosexuality as concordant behavior, fantasy, and cognition focused on same-sex activity and relationships and (more broadly) the cultural life of a would-be community of such people. "Homosexuals engage in and fantasize about same-sex activity. They also think about life from the perspective of being 'homosexual'." Statistically, homosexuality deviates from the overwhelming norm of heterosexuality. — Bitter Crank

I consider men who want to marry other men, father or adopt and raise children, to be seduced or deluded by "assimilationist" propaganda which sees the road to respectability looking a lot like the typical heterosexual family.

why would anyone care what some others are consenting to and doing amongst themselves, as long as it does not impact me? — jajsfaye

Because human behavior is so interesting. You could be straight as the day is long, and still find it interesting what kind of lives homosexuals lead. And in reverse, gay people find the various doings of heterosexuals to be interesting as well.

I think that in these discussions it really isn't about defining exactly what it is. — jajsfaye

I think the term "homosexual" is as well defined as any term. — Hanover

Apparently neither of you know what a homosexual is, or if you do you elected for some reason to not provide that knowledge.

I agree that it's probably reasonable and reliable to accept anyone's self-identification as gay, at least at first. But what do you do with someone who isn't making it easy for you? Assuming some situation where it matters, or is at least a matter of interest.

The point is, the question is, is there any boundary one side of which is heterosexual, the other homosexual? I personally think there is no such boundary, that no such boundary exists, the conventional "boundaries" being mere social fictions. Bitter Crank comes comes closest, but we note that at the critical point, homosexuality is "defined as." It's as if one said, "What's that?" and the answer was, "We don't know, but we call it homosexual."

Apparently neither of you know what a homosexual is, or if you do you elected for some reason to not provide that knowledge. — tim wood

You missed my point. The ambiguity and vagueness of "homosexual" is no greater than any other term. Your objection is universal and invalid, as it would assume an inability to communicate, yet we do. To say I don't see a difference in your calling me a homosexual or a carrot makes the point we must know what the terms mean, even if the boundaries of both terms are ultimately uncertain and determined by context.

The point is, the question is, is there any boundary one side of which is heterosexual, the other homosexual? I personally think there is no such boundary, that no such boundary exists, the conventional "boundaries" being mere social fictions. — tim wood

It will be difficult for you to accept a definition of homosexuality if you think "whatever homosexuality is has no boundaries other than 'mere social fictions'". Consistent strong physical sexual arousal, vivid fantasies, longing, desire, and so on isn't a 'social fiction' for me. It's been an integral part of my personality for as long as I can remember. The men I have met whose physical and emotional beings are homosexual aren't social fictions either. (I don't consider sexual orientation a social construct. Constructionists think they are; essentialists think they are inborn, biologically based.)

Kinsey supposed that most people were heterosexual and a relatively small number were homosexual. Between those two groups were people whose orientation was bisexual--attracted in varying degrees to both males and females. (There has always been a background nattering of doubt about whether bisexuals really exist, or whether they are really just confused homosexuals.) As far as I can tell, there really are bisexuals. There really are heterosexuals, and there really are homosexuals. The boundaries would fall between #0 and #1, and between #5 and #6. Bisexuals would be #2 - #5. Bear in mind, Kinsey's chart doesn't reflect population size at all. Most people are heterosexual (and nothing else), some people are bisexual (and nothing else), and some people are homosexual (and nothing else).

The group which may seem to have boundary problems is bisexual, because they vary from "mostly heterosexual" to "mostly homosexual" and the difference between a #3 and a #4, for instance, is arbitrary.

Tim: Are you a heterosexual? If you are heterosexual, is there any doubt in your mind about what that means?

Fair reply. I buy it. If there's any difficulty with it, it would seem to be reliance on self-identification. I'm looking for something more evident. For example, you can usually tell a man from a woman. If clothing and hairstyle aren't conclusive, there are Adam's apples and wrists and calves. That is, there is usually something or several somethings by which you can tell. Of course, there are more "absolute" tests. The usual result of those are that you're either female or male - and in rare cases it isn't so clear. The point is that with rare exceptions there are unexceptional tests for telling for sure whether a human being is female or male. With the rare exceptions, again no confusion; you know that it isn't so clear.

Let's try this. You have a lovely young heterosexual niece that some man wants to marry. On meeting him, you think, wait-a-minute, he's gay! You ask, he denies. You suspect he's less than candid. Your niece says, "Prove it!" How would you go about that? Or is it even possible?

Or these. There's a semi-joke about women at an all women's college being "lugs" - lesbian until graduation. Or of men in prison, "gay for stay." I would say that whatever truth is in either of these, is a behavioral truth, a proposition about behaviour that represents some behavour, but that beyond that is simply unpleasant and inaccurate rhetoric, a fiction. Agree?

Am I gay? No. But I am of an age where I see the viciousness in the labels and can find no attendant substance in them. If I say, "He's gay!" Apparently all that I can mean is that "he" sincerely self-identifies as gay, or that I have private criteria that I apply. Or, he's gay because he says he is, or because I say he is.

As to Kinsey, what exactly is that, a predictor of likely behaviour? As you represent it, it's definitional, meaning that a person's gayness depends on his answers to the questions on a particular survey.

How is this any different than a white racist saying blacks are less evolved or a misogynistic male claiming a woman's place is in the kitchen? It is every bit as offensive and untrue.

Am I gay? No — tim wood

How do you know?

"Prove it!" How would you go about that? — tim wood

Your assuming my lovely young heterosexual niece isn't actually a lesbian. How do you know she's straight? How would you find out? Maybe the lesbian and gay guy are going to marry for political convenience and appearances. It has been done, after all (not often, but...)

Anyway... IF I really wanted to prove it, I could hire a private investigator to follow him around and observe whether he ever frequented homosexual hangouts (bars, baths, parks, etc.), whether he had friends who could be determined to be gay, and whether is internet and cell phone usage showed gay interests. This would involve very intrusive snooping, but it could be done.

OR I could ask a suave, observant gay male to follow this alleged fag around and cruise him (make his sexual interest subtly knowable), chat him up, etc. and observe whether there was any response. If there was, he could move to the next phase and see whether the niece's boyfriend could be gotten into bed (or a stall, or alley, or... what have you).

OR he could also be interrogated more... forcefully, shall we say to see what beans he would spill.

Finally, we asked him, and he said "not gay". Leave it at that. Gaydar doesn't have 100% accuracy.

Don't lose your time, Wellwisher is a troll.

I mean, "homosexuality is contrary to evolution". Do you really need a deep critical philology to figure out he's just inserting a more hip word in " X is contrary to the will of God"?

Beside being entirely wrong, besides, since we already have working models showing how homosexuality could be considered an evolutional advantage.

all that I can mean is that "he" sincerely self-identifies as gay, — tim wood

And why isn't that sufficient? Claiming to be gay in 2018 does not confer many advantages in life. There are plenty of places where it can get one killed. When we were both young men, back in the ancient post-stonewall world of the 1970s it was even less of an advantage (if it wasn't a definite risk) but still, a lot of gay men announced to the world "I am gay". I never heard anybody say, "Oh, you are just saying that to be outrageous." (Lady, if I wanted to be outrageous, I could tell you stories that would curl your hair.)

Now, not everybody's self identification is straight forward, so to speak. Laud Humphreys published Tea Room Trade in 1971, about. it was based on his PhD dissertation. Humphreys investigated what sexual activities went on in the St. Louis, Mo. public toilets in parks. Quite a bit, actually. The book recounts how encounters are managed. In order to find out more about these guys (without asking them straight out) he kept a list of the license plates of the men who parked near the toilets and whom he observed having sex with other men. He then tracked down the addresses associated with the licenses, and then arranged bogus survey interviews at the homes of the men. (Like, a company was doing a survey of planned appliance purchases -- that sort of thing.) From these surveys he obtained the demographic information.***

Many of the guys turned out to be married men living in suburbs, many with children.

IF you asked these men whether they were homosexual, they almost certainly would have said "NO" in emphatic terms. Were they gay or were they straight? Maybe they were gay, but in that time and in that place could not find a way to be openly gay. Maybe they were bisexual, and marriage gave them convenient cover. None the less, they often engaged in homosexual activity. My guess is that they did not think of themselves as gay, but liked getting head (or as they got older, giving head). Otherwise they were typical men who worked for a living and supported their families.

***Humphrey's research methods caused a fire storm of controversy. He would never be able to get away with that sort of immensely useful research today.

The Boys of Fairy Town: Sodomites, Female Impersonators, Third-Sexers, Pansies, Queers, and Sex Morons in Chicago's First Century, Jun 1, 2018 by Jim Elledge tells an older story of how men in late 19th and early 20th century expressed homosexuality. Fascinating history.

The message was never intended for him.

I mean, "homosexuality is contrary to evolution". Do you really need a deep critical philology to figure out he's just inserting a more hip word in " X is contrary to the will of God"?

Beside being entirely wrong, besides, since we already have working models showing how homosexuality could be considered an evolutional advantage. — Akanthinos

Troll or not, there are many people who have difficulty getting their heads around the idea of homosexuality being advantageous in an evolutionary sense. I am one.

For instance, these two male black swans hooking up, building a nest, and then stealing fertile eggs from straight black swans which they then hatch and raise the chicks. Fascinating -- but is it an evolutionary advantage or just something that happens? In their case, two male swans carry a lot of social weight in the flock, and their borrowed chicks tend to do quite well. But then, everything else being equal, most swans do a pretty good job of hatching their eggs.

And what about the wild sex lives of our primate relatives, the Bonobos. They make a gay orgy look pedestrian. Maybe Bonobos demonstrate a method for resolving the logjam in Congress. Here's an image to get out of your head as quickly as possible: Mitch McConnell trying to fuck Nancy Pelosi as a means of negotiating immigration reform.

And what is the survival advantage of a species that breeds out of control until it no longer can support the community? We are at 7 billion people and still climbing.

When humans ran in hunter gather tribes adults were much more valuable than children, as adults could contribute to the tribe while children just consumed resources. So how do you keep a balanced adult child ratio? Add a few homosexuals to the mix, they can still fall in love and continue that ever vital social bonding cycle while still providing a strong back to help with the labors of the tribe

If you ask me, we'd be much better off if more people were gay.

H/G children would be less productive when they are very young, but would soon be old enough to forage and perform some tasks. Their greater value comes when the adults start to age, and need youthful hunters and tribal defenders.

If you ask me, we'd be much better off if more people were gay. — Jeremiah

Yeah, well, I'll drink to that.

H/G children would be less productive when they are very young, but would soon be old enough to forage and perform some tasks. Their greater value comes when the adults start to age, and need youthful hunters and tribal defenders. — Bitter Crank

They use to leave children behind when it became too much of a burden. I would assume they also left the old behind.

Personally, I think it is deeply offensive calling for gays to legitimize their presence, as if they have to defend their right to even exist.