Common Misconceptions Concerning Homosexuality

1. Homosexuality is unnatural!

Even if you do consider it unnatural, which it isn’t, is it any more so than circumcision? Nature intended human males to have foreskins, but humans cut them off artificially.

Actually, homosexual behaviour has been identified in over 1500 animal species. Remember that sex is not just a mean for procreation, but is also a widely used in the animal kingdom for social interactions. Hyenas, for instance, engage in anal intercourse to exert dominance over the other. The male cuttlefish “pseudo-mates” with another male to eliminate competition for the female. It is not bizarre at all that homosexuality is present among humans as well.

2.  Homosexuality is a mental disorder!

There are two organizations in the world whose recommendations, as far as psychiatric medicine is concerned, are followed globally: The World Health Organization (WHO); and the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Neither of these organizations classify homosexuality as a  psychiatric illness. APA, which removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders back in 1973, has called this phenomenon, “a normal, behavioral variation”.

3. Gay people spread diseases!

Almost every activity in the world is associated with an increased risk of some disorder. You wouldn’t call candy immoral because of its potential to cause or exacerbate diabetes, which is a far greater health concern for the world today than HIV.  You wouldn’t say that bird flu is “God’s wrath” upon those who eat chicken. Why then lash out against homosexuality for the increased risk of transmitting certain STD’s?  The answer to this problem lies in promoting safe sex. Attempting to eliminate homosexuality as a way to contain the spread of STD’s is not only impractical, but cruel and unnatural.

4. Homosexuality can be cured!

As I pointed out earlier, homosexuality is not classified as a disease by either of the two largest medical organizations pertinent to psychiatry. There is no point in “curing” that which isn’t a disease in the first place. It’s like attempting to cure your love for the colour blue, or your admiration for Rush Limbaugh.Many religious people have attempted to sell socially admonished homosexuals an imaginary cure for this imaginary disease. Leading psychiatrists claim that homosexuality, being a natural, biological instinct, cannot be artificially altered. The most that these “cures” can accomplish is teach gay people not to act out on these instincts. A famous attempt at curing homosexuality by popular sexologists William Masters and Virginia Johnson ended with great embarrassment for the two when it turned out that Masters had been manipulating the study data.

    • Yawar
    • October 17th, 2011

    If gay people did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them. Their very presence is a corrective to the monomaniacal obsession with gender in a society like that of Pakistan.

    • Yawar
    • October 19th, 2011

    btw, speaking of gay people—and implicitly the influence of religion in society—lecture 4 here is by a cultural historian who was also a founder of Gay history. Specifically for the purposes of this blog, he gives a superb account of the history of introduction of non-theistic ideas in Europe of the 17’th century—not very far removed from state of Pakistan in the 21’st century where idiocies like “blasphemy” and sectarian schisms are matters of life and death for millions.

      • loneliberalpk
      • October 19th, 2011


    • Ignorant Rationalist
    • October 26th, 2011

    1- Even if homosexuality is prevalent in nature, it does not mean you can use that to justify homosexuality in humans. Your argument is a logical fallacy. Because if you are to take one example from animal behavior, why pick and choose and not take other behaviors? Because a black widow spider kills her partner after sexual mating. By that logic if a prostitute were to kill a man, it should be natural and acceptable as well.

    Selectively picking and choosing examples from nature to justify your beliefs (which are stupid in the first place) do not give legitimacy to your claims. Rather they only show your stupidity.

    Giving an example of foreskin is another stupid reason. You also should not shave your facial hear, your pubes, your nose hair and your ear hair just because it is natural and were born that way. But I am sure you clean shave your facial hair every other day. And also your pubes.

    2- Argument from authority, a logical fallacy. Just because there are 2 organizations who NOW think it is not abnormal behavior, does not mean it is not. At one point, one of those organizations actually did classify homosexuality as a disease.


    3- The incidence of STDs is indeed high in homosexuals who have unprotected sex compared to STDs in heterosexual monogamous or polygamous couples (exclude prostitutes or people with new sexual partner every month).

    4- Again, homosexuality to me is as much of a disease as having a sexual partner every week. If the former is right, the later is too. That being said, then polygamy should be allowed if all the women consent to the polygamous guy.

      • loneliberalpk
      • October 26th, 2011

      1. I responded here to the specific claim that “homosexuality is unnatural”. I’ve explained how this biological phenomenon is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom, including the human species. Whether this behaviour is socially acceptable among humans was never a part of this particular point.

      That’s why it’s important to read the whole article instead of attempting to reply to each paragraph separately.

      2. You have absolutely no idea what argumentum ad baculum is. If you visit your doctor and he suggests you a drug, you don’t throw the prescription back at his face claiming that following the medical expert’s advice would be “appeal to authority”. And then you go home and take the drug of your own choice, possibly killing yourself in the process.

      You acknowledge that the doctor’s knowledge of medical science is superior to yours, and it would be wise to follow his recommendation. After all, did you ever argue with your chemistry teacher in school why the atomic mass of carbon is 12 and not 79? And refused to accept the figure believing that it would be “appeal to authority”?

      3. Agreed. But you didn’t address my point. You simply ignored at your own convenience.

      4. Again, you didn’t address the point about curing homosexuality, and simply expanded on #3. So I assume we’re in agreement that sexual orientation cannot be artificially altered.

        • Ignorant Rationalist
        • October 27th, 2011

        1- Do not know what you are talking about.

        2- No, I do not blindly believe what my doctor says or what prescription he gives me. I also do not accept that just because he has studied medicine more than me makes his knowledge superior to mine. I look at evidence and if doctor’s prescription I am not comfortable with, I do not take it. I do not believe in whatever doctor says simply because he is bound to make a mistake any time, even after he has obtained his license.

        Actually, I did argue with my chemistry teacher why the atomic number of hydrogen was 1 and not 2.

        3- I said what I wanted to say.

        4- I did not say I accept homosexuality to be an inborn genetic orientation. It is not completely known yet what determines one’s sexuality. It is a host of genetic and environmental factors. There is no “gay” gene. Moreover, if someone was sexually stimulated by heavy teats on a girl, it does not mean he was born that way. He very well could try to like small teats. Maybe he can.

    • loneliberalpk
    • October 27th, 2011

    2. Once again, it’s not “ad baculum” because the scientific organizations are not just forcing you to believe whatever they say. They have documented proof to back their position, which they freely offer to anyone who is interested in that kind of research (google Kinsey and Hooker studies).

    Just like if you ask your doctor, “Why prescribe bromazepam? Why not diazepam?”, he will explain to you the rationale of his choice, and possibly even tell you about the pharmacological studies that they’ve conducted. He’s not forcing you to take the drug with a “cudgel”, and neither is the APA or WHO forcing you to accept this information.

    Unless you’re a physicist yourself, you listen to the scientific experts when they teach you that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Unless you’re a psychiatrist, you listen to what the experts in psychiatric medicine tell you instead of making up your own mind about homosexuality.

    4. We do know that homosexuality is not a matter of choice. There may not be a specific “gay” gene, but a plethora of genetic factors that affect a person’s sexual orientation.

    • Ignorant Rationalist
    • October 27th, 2011

    3- No. I listen to what physicists and what psychiatrists have to say, based on evidence. If their interpretation of data does not agree with my interpretation, I do not accept what they have to say. Speed of light is demonstrable, there is no interpretation involved.

    However, medicine is mostly not as clear as determining “speed of light.” Most of the medicine keeps on changing within decades. Our calculations of Speed of light will most likely not change for the next 1000 years, except that they will only get more precise, maybe up to 100000000000000 decimal place. Apples and oranges.

    4- We do not know if homosexuality is a matter of choice or not. We can never know. Most likely it is alterable, as many things in life are. Alcoholism is. Homosexuality can be as well. There is far far more evidence that alcoholism is more genetic than homosexuality is. Despite that previous alcoholics are alcoholics no more after therapy.

  1. A psychiatrist, being an expert in the field pertinent to this subject, is in a better position to evaluate and interpret the data than you, a non-scientist.

    The APA’s position in deeming homosexuality “a normal, behavioural variation” is based on as much tangible evidence as the figure for the speed of light. Yet you choose to deny this piece of scientific information because it disagrees with your religious perspective of what reality “ought to be”

    You’re cherry-picking scientific information depending on your personal beliefs. Science, which is founded on solid proof, will not change to conform with your religious beliefs. It is your beliefs that must change to conform with the scientific realities.

    And no, homosexuality is not “most likely” alterable. We have no real evidence to say otherwise. Alcoholism is completely different. It is based on physical dependency involving neuronal restructuring after chronic use, and cannot possibly be clumped up with homosexuality.

    A simpler way to put it: a person only becomes an alcoholic AFTER he has consumed alcohol (in large doses, nonetheless), but a person can become gay without ever indulging in homosexual behaviour (in fact, being gay is a prerequisite to having gay sex)

      • Ignorant Rationalist
      • October 27th, 2011

      I do not accept your premise that a psychiatrist is in better position to interpret data than I am. Even if I am not a psychiatrist but i know the basics of biology, psychology and pathology, I am qualified to understand the data, sometimes far better than the qualified psychiatrist. That is exactly how life works, a seemingly inexperienced scientist makes a breakthrough discovery and becomes known as a “well experienced” scientist. Anyways.

      • For you to assume that your judgement in matters of science is as good as that of a scientist who has spent half his life studying this particular field, is ignorance on your part.

        Your position is comparable to that of a school boy who refuses to believe the information provided to him through the periodic table, and insists that the atomic mass of carbon is 79. Why? Has he personally conducted any scientific studies on the matter? Has his research survived the rigid falsification process through peer reviewing? Does he possess any conclusive evidence on the basis of which he claims that the atomic mass is 79 as opposed to the scientific position which claims that it’s 12?

        No. Not really. But he’s adamant that he’s right and all the world’s leading scientists are wrong.

        In that spirit, the next time you visit a hospital to have yourself examined, put your confidence to the test by interpreting the Blood CP, Doppler Echo and ECG reports on your own, and write your own prescription. After all, your interpretation is as good as the doctor’s, right? Why listen to the expert?

    • Yawar
    • October 27th, 2011

    btw, speaking of natural inclinations that in of themselves are quite “innocent”, but which due to societal fears and loathings can become social problems, another such issue, esp. in our part of the world is left-handedness. Many children are “trained” like animals to avoid using their left hand in their infancy, and only later when they’ve grown up their mother (most common giver of this “training”) reveals the secret to them. This lone secret then turns out to be the explanation for a whole host of behaviors that the supposedly right-handed person might have experienced:

    It is obvious that a child who writes and draws “passive” arm, perform these actions more difficult than right-handed children. The child wrote slowly, makes more corrections, errors – the result is worse student, is falling behind and receiving poor grades. And this despite the fact that the child may be much smarter and smarter peers! I kid appears diffidence, Trapped, a pathological fear of failure, which escalate into serious complexes, neuroses, and a persistent unwillingness to learn. Quite healthy and happy child may begin to suffer from tics, stuttering, nocturnal enuresis, fears, “writing hand” – seizures that occur when the child begins to write or simply picks up a pen. The fears and neuroses may in turn slow down the overall mental and intellectual development, because the child is constantly under stress, from which sees exit. And, as we know, stress, constant fear, “paralyzing” and slow down the psycho-emotional development. In addition, the baby can for life hate reading, writing, drawing and the process of learning. Complexes appeared in childhood, a person can take through life, it will reflected not only on his professional growth, but also in communion with peers, with the opposite sex.

    • That is accurate.

      Homosexuality is not recognized as a disease, but it associated with a wide range of mental disorders, more likely due to the society’s hostile attitude towards them.

    • Yawar
    • October 28th, 2011

    Yes, above passage is from an article that was translated (sic) into English. It’s interesting that many of the so-called stereotypical markers of gay culture are supposedly under threat of being lost, now that gay people are not discriminated against as blatantly as they once were, at least in most urban areas of industrialized countries. CEO of the 2nd largest company in the world by market cap is now a gay person, and hardly anyone paid any attention to his sexuality:

    It is a fair bet to say that members of stigmatized minorities suffer from higher incidence of mental and physical maladies (common among, say, Catholics in N. Ireland, Koreans in Japan, blacks in US, etc.):

    The foregoing should not be construed as an argument that sexual minority individuals are free from mental illness and psychological distress. Indeed, given the stresses created by sexual stigma and prejudice, it would be surprising if some of them did not manifest psychological problems. The data from some studies suggest that, although most sexual minority individuals are well adjusted, nonheterosexuals may be at somewhat heightened risk for depression, anxiety, and related problems, compared to exclusive heterosexuals.

    One of the more useful avenues for bringing greater acceptance of gay people–as well as providing an opportunity to meet these people–is PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). Similar organizations are needed in the more cosmopolitan cities of Pakistan as well, especially for parents to get support in a humane and constructive environment.

    • aliberalsdeath
    • January 29th, 2012

    Reblogged this on Uncensored and commented:
    This. Is the best.

    • LMFAO on Your Highness!
    • August 16th, 2012

    Just a thought, homosexuality is common in animal kingdom you say, what about incest sex being more common? How about next time you go fuck your sister just because it is so natural and so common in animal kingdom.

    • Hah, let me guess: You’re Muslim? On this blog, the most foul-mouthed people who use personal attacks instead of engaging in a rational discussion, are always the religious ones.

      Kudos on reading the first paragraph and jumping straight to the comment section. That was a response specifically to the argument that homosexuality is “unnatural”. As I demonstrated, it is not.

      I didn’t argue that it’s the only reason why homosexual behavior shouldn’t be objected to.

    • LMFAO on Your Highness!
    • August 17th, 2012

    Lol, well guess what? I am not a Muslim. :p

    And kudos for making another wrong assumption that i didnt read the whole blog. FYI I did. Although the rest of your points are too weak to argue for aginst homosexuality, and frankly they are not the reason I object homosexuality. The first one was, however, so funny and irrational, that I couldnt resist the urge to slap it back into your face. XD

    • Religious though, clearly. In my experience, homophobia is always directly proportional to religiosity.

      The first one is the response to an irrational claim that homosexuality is “unnatural”. That claim is not mine. It’s been invented by your kin. You may dump the blame on their doorstep.

      Homosexuality is not a human invention. People who quite laughably argue that penis is for the vagina only, are woefully ignorant of our human anatomy, physiology, evolutionary biology and general knowledge of the animal kingdom.

      And if only ad hominems could win debates, your retort would not have been a legendary fail.

      Thank you for visiting my blog.

        • 16815514923
        • August 17th, 2012

        Salute! wow, you really want push your judgement for me being a religious person? believe me I am not even near religion :p.

        All i am saying that you were defending homosexuality as being natural. not unnatural as “my kin” objects. You say it is natural because every other animal does it. Why not humans? I agree to that point. And moving on, every other animal indulges in incest. Why not humans? Why is it so taboo for you? Or for any other sane human? We are taking inspirations from the animal kingdom right? Why not adopt all their personality traits?

        All I am trying to prove here is that, out of your 5 points, 4 are rational and a great slap to those who appose homosexuality. But the first one, seriously you should have thought a little more before justifying that one!

        I mean after all you want to keep things logical right? And logic means approaching a statement / problem in all possible ways and not just stopping there, concluding it.

  2. I never claimed that humans should engage in homosexual activity because other species in the animal kingdom do it too. It was just to elucidate the point that homosexuality is not a human invention. Like heterosexual behavior, homosexuality too has been passed down to us by our evolutionary ancestors.

    Unlike homosexuality, incestuous behavior is not an orientation. There’s no such thing as an “inclination” to have sexual relations with consanguineous partners (beyond oedipus complex which is short-lived, occurring during an early developmental phase). It’s a conscious choice, and can be avoided for excellent medical and social reasons.

      • 15696325487
      • August 18th, 2012

      now you mean to say homosexuality is something builtin and not a conscious choice, since it was inherited? then how come we forgot to inherit incest from our evolutionary ancestors? i am still confused that off all the personality traits, why only did we inherited homosexuality? what about the rest of the traits?

      now you will say that part of evolution, right? we dropped a few traits just be evolved into something better. but well socially since homosexuality is not acceptable so evlution means dropping that trait too no?

      • You’re jumbling homosexuality and incest like they’re sister paraphilias. They are not, they are worlds apart. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Incest is a sexual preference. Personal preferences have little to do with inheritance or evolution. They are more about culture.

        If you prevent a lesbian from having sexual relations with another woman, you have effectively killed her entire sex life. It’s because she’s not sexually oriented to the male gender. Imagine me telling you (assuming you’re a straight male) that you can have sex with anyone except a female, would you quietly go have sex with a man instead? No, because your orientation is heterosexual, and a man simply wouldn’t turn you on.

        In contrast, if you tell a girl that she cannot have sex with her brother, she can leave the house and have sex with any one of the billions of men out there to whom she’s not genetically related. It’s because her brother was merely a preference.

    • Vianney Sánchez
    • September 7th, 2012

    Imagine me telling you: what should the readers of this blog assume is your biological gender: male? female?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: