I stopped by useless-knowledge earlier today for a quick look and couldn't help seeing several articles written about homosexuality. I have personal issues with discipline which is partially why I don't write or participate in forum debates much these days. This is also why I couldn't help but write this article ;)

Before I delve into the meat of my article, I'd like to mention that I've written about gay issues before and always receive the same batch of email and comments. I've been asked to write for gay websites. I declined. There are far more interesting things that I'd like to write about. Some will ask if I'm gay. I am not, and this troubles me a little. Not because I don't wish to be considered gay. I have no problem with this at all because I don't view homosexuality itself as a negative

Rather, it bothers me and adds to my pessimism about the future, as humanity seems to show real concern only for its own sub-groups (religious, racial, political, national, etc.) In the long run, will humans survive as a species? I love to write about what possibilities await us if we do, but more and more, I personally doubt it.

In any case, on to the meat.

One columnist correctly noted in the midst of his piece that homosexuality hasn't been considered a disorder for decades, yet attributes this to "liberal" political correctness. The piece, however, makes no real attempt to show that this is the case. If that classification of homosexuality was indeed just for political reasons, then certain parts of the rest of the piece may have some validity. If not, then the rest has almost no validity and smacks of being influenced by "conservative" political correctness, such as the kind that looks the other way as Pat Robertson and Co. push the boundaries of Church/State separation.

In any case, isn't it logical that the goal of the article should have been to back up this claim that the American medical community just acted in an unscientific - liberal - way when they reclassified homosexuality? Until I find good evidence to the contrary I will accept the current view that homosexuality in humans is not in fact a disorder nor a "medical abnormality." Until this is established with good evidence, the views expressed in that piece are flawed - the analogy to deaf folk who choose to remain deaf, for example, simply doesn't apply.

The bit also mentions a female activist and gay sheep. I knew nothing about gay sheep prior to this article, but I did find this link which points out something that I was quite familiar with: homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom. These aren't mere abnormalities or harmful natural perversions, but evolved behaviors which add benefit. What then is the connection, logically, with an abnormality in humans and sheep? Assuming these sheep are in fact defective, what does this say about gayness and the Natural Order? Given the very many non-abnormal non-sheep cases of homosexuality in nature, I'd say it says nothing at all. What do the political views of one lesbian woman have to do with the science of homosexuality? Nothing at all.

Sheep evolution was heavily influenced by man to produce goods. If that process is considered acceptable and moral, then wanting to improve the quality/productivity by increasing the number of sheep that can make baby sheep should also be acceptable . I have no problem with that. Humans are not, however, bred just for wool or meat. In fact, most of the time that humans have sex, they do so for recreation and bonding, not for reproduction. This was the case even during the Puritan's reign in the Colonies and it remains so today, no matter how much we'd like to pretend otherwise.

Overall, one hopes that doctors consult current scientific and medical research not in a political light, but in an objective light meant to give their patients the best care possible. It would take a considerable body of research and carefully accumulated evidence to reclassify homosexuality as a disorder among humans.

Ironically, I wasn't looking for such an article at all from World Science, but rather, for an article from that website mentioned by another UK columnist also known for writing thoughtful articles employing logical reasoning. A second, refined, search found the mentioned article:

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/061109_gambling.htm

Here is the relevant summary:

"Gay and bisexual men may be unusually prone to compulsive gambling, a small study has found, adding to growing evidence linking homosexuality to various addictions and mental illnesses.

The results require confirmation by future studies, researchers say, but underscore concerns that gays and lesbians might require special attention and care for a range of mental disorders. The findings could also fuel a charged debate over whether these conditions stem from homosexuality itself, or rather from the stress of suffering antigay discrimination."

Here is another interesting bit, the bold-face emphasis is my doing:

"There's a growing concern that homosexually active individuals are at increased risk for psychiatric morbidity, or illness, wrote another group of scientists in the June 2001 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. Several surveys have found elevated rates of some anxiety disorders, mood disorders, and substance use disorders among homosexuals. The reasons are unclear, wrote the authors, with Harvard Medical School in Boston and other institutions. One possibility, they added, is that gays and lesbians are more frequent victims of early life abuse. A second, they continued, is that lesbians and gay men simply lead riskier lives. Yet another explanation, for which they cited substantially more evidence, was that stigmatization and exposure to discriminatory behavior lead to higher rates of mental disorders. This hypothesis is consistent with the finding that lesbians and gay men experience discrimination in multiple domains of life, which in turn is tied to psychological distress. Other disadvantaged groups also face higher-than-average risk for psychological problems, they wrote."

Logic would indicate that in order to write articles casting homosexuality in a negative light, we must first have some evidence to that effect. The above research indicates that these other mental issues which seem to be more prevalent among gays could also be caused by the discrimination gays face. While one solution would be to attempt to somehow "fix" gays (something we can't yet do with any reasonable success rate), another would be to accept gays fully, something that we know precisely how to do (although this is by no means an easy feat in the USA) and something which has already happened in other parts of the globe.

I lean to the discrimination-as-the-cause side because, barring further evidence, it makes the most sense. How many cases do we have of the picked-on student that goes bonkers with a gun? Of the disenfranchised sub-group acting out in anti-social or harmful ways? More than enough, I'd say. More than enough to understand that we shouldn't, without good evidence, try to legislate (or taboo) taste.

Besides a short quip pointing out this rather large variable concerning homosexuality in humans in relation to that study, the author mentions several anecdotal cases of gay folk who live arguably miserable and self-destructive lives. These make for interesting reading, to be sure, and may influence the author to make up his own personal mind about gays, but they say essentially nothing logically about the issue in general. I'm sure that we all know drug-abusing folk who just can't make it in life. I know a few myself; none of them are gay. This says nothing nothing about gays or "straights."

To be clear, I will readily admit that there are darker sides to all so called "sub-cultures," including the gay sub-culture (though the addition of gambling and other vices was new information to me); anyone thinking otherwise isn't being honest. The better answer seems to me to be, without more evidence, to embrace and open up society to homosexuality. We do have some working models we can look at. Sparta, for better or worse, functioned as a Greek city-state under a system of compulsory homosexuality. Several highly successful European countries function just fine under social systems which allow, embrace and sanctify homosexuality. Australia openly allows gays into its armed forces, and so on.

Homosexuality does catalyze the spread of AIDS horrifically in countries with low resources and poor education. In wealthy countries with good education, this isn't the case. Obviously, the significant variable here isn't homosexuality alone, but wealth and education. Again, we know, in theory, how to address the wealth and education problems - we and/or the nations who suffer just lack the political will. Assuming we stamped out all gayness in Africa, millions would still die of malaria and other diseases. Assuming we stamped out poverty, health would generally improve, including AIDS. Why then pick on homosexuality? Why employ magic-lines for conservative idealogical reasons?

But let's say that we should somehow not accept gay folk into greater society, not because we want to be discriminatory, but because we want to preempt possible negative effects associated with the gay sub-culture, leaving aside for the moment the credible idea that embracing gays will wean off the negative dark-side of gay "culture."

Why not then also ban McDonald's and the like? Wouldn't this potentially save Medicare and Medicaid billions per year, given that heart disease is a leading cause of death? This is not so far fetched, several large cities are already considering healthy-food enforcements, specifically involving trans-fats. But why stop there? Let's also refuse to cover liver transplants for alcoholics. Let's ban driving. Driving is a leading cause of death, more so for young people; emergency rooms are frequently loaded with young drivers in need of a series of costly operations. I worked as an orderly during my college years and used to work hospital night-shifts for extra money assisting 20-somethings who didn't know where they were (and facing their 8^th major surgery) to the bathroom. Why not push the notion that young people should drive out of our culture? Let's also ban mountain climbing, or, refuse to pay for rescue helicopters if a group of hikers vanishes. My sister isn't an avid reader, but she is an avid skydiver. Clearly, her hobby is more dangerous than mine. Let's embarrass those who choose to skydive or ban the sport outright. She's in college and works as a waitress and she has no health insurance. Why should society have to pay if she breaks her legs, or worse?

There comes a point here when one must ask, what is the difference? What is that magic line in the sand and where is it? Sex seems to be the only genuine difference that I see. America is a very prudish country compared to other first world nations. Japan has pornography on every magazine and book rack. Among the choices on the Internet, theirs also tends to be the most extreme and twisted, even their animated pornography, yet their negative social stats, teen pregnancy, abortion, rape and such are well below ours. There is no good and conclusive evidence that censoring sex related activities/material leads to anything measurably better (there is some evidence that censoring violence might lead to measurably better indicators, but we seem to ignore that one and sweep it under the national rug. Our sports are violent and we love wrestling and seeing someone on fire running from a burning car wreckage on the race-track...)

My suggestion then is not shut down fast food chains, skydiving outfits, and the porn industry, or to "convert" gays into straights, but rather to once and for all, tear down the taboos and curtains surrounding sex. We could start by legalizing prostitution. As a matter of fact, why not allow young post-pubescent mentally mature teens to be taught by visiting and having sex with specialized, educated, professional, clean, prostitutes? Why not employ REAL sex education? Why shouldn't someone benefit by learning how to have sex in a healthy manner? Do's and don'ts? Which lubricants work best? Which household liquids should never be used as lubricants? Which types of sex are the most dangerous and which positions give the most pleasure? Why shouldn't we all be taught multiple techniques? When one remembers the fears, insecurities and peer pressure associated with sex, one should be able to imagine a possible future Middle School and High School system free of most of the usual junk that gets in the way of learning.

An utter un-tabooing of sex would also put an end to the predator/prey relationship that sex offenders have with children. Why would a knowledgeable and confident child in a sex-open society be fearful of telling another adult that his/her genitals were touched? And, would merely having one's genitals touched lead to a lifetime of emotional issues in such a society? Certainly not.

When America's attitude towards sex equals the sentiments expressed in this article, the incidents or rape, pedophilia and negative side effects of homosexuality will surely lower to the levels in other comparable nations. [1] I can just imagine the outrage of suggesting that in America we shore up the nursing shortage by using prostitutes! But wouldn't we just be collectively fooling ourselves? Didn't we collectively fool ourselves by being outraged at seeing Janet Jackson's breast? Don't we often as Americans reflexively feign shock where none is warranted and remain apathetic where shock is required and even helpful?

Prostitution is an interesting, but quite different topic, of course, but suffice it to say that hooking is unwholesome in America only because we choose to make it unwholesome and this is true for many so-called traditional American values.

* * * *

[1] I don't want to present a false view of Germany here. That program to turn hookers into nurses is not without critics in Germany. It does highlight some of the differences, however, and that such a program would even be considered, and actually established, is a pragmatic, non-emotional view, which is what we should expect from government. Hookers are already comfortable with the human body, they aren't easily disgusted at giving elderly men sponge baths and so forth - those were some of the ideas that spawned that program.

	Web useless-knowledge.com