--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >As a psychiatrist, he was pro-homosexuals. >
Being a psychiatrist does not automatically make someone pro-homosexual. > >He dismissed calling their sexual behavior normal. > This is not in consonance with the guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which guides the diagnosis of mental illness in psychiatric practice. > >According to him, "An average sexual contact of a >homosexual through his / her life is about 100 >DIFFERENT individuals." > There are several scientific studies that contradict the above statement. For example: Billy JO, Tanfer K, Grady WR, Klepinger DH. (1993) The sexual behavior of men in the United States, Fam Plann Perspect. 1993 Mar-Apr;25(2):52-60. Fay RE, Turner CF, Klassen AD, Gagnon JH. (1989) Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science. 1989 Jan 20;243(4889):338-48. According to these studies, 69% of homosexual men have contact with less than 5 partners. Only 18% have 10 or more partners. > >He went on to say, "How can that be considered normal >... even for heterosexuals?" > According to this type of reasoning all heterosexual and homosexual persons who have sexual contact with 100 or more partners would be considered abnormal. Very few people would find this type of logic convincing. This is certainly not a basis to characterize all homosexuals as abnormal, because a sizable plurality of them are not promiscuous. Indeed, the prevalence of celibacy is greater among homosexuals than heterosexuals. > >If one is thinking of No Consequences - there is a >whole category of STD (sexually transmitted diseases). >Now one may say, "That has nothing to do with >sexuality or having multiple partners." Yea!:=)) > Increased extraneous risk of a particular of kind among any group of individuals does not make them abnormal. For example, women are more prone to have breast cancer. It is not considered abnormal to be a woman. > >A 'good gene mutation' through evolution makes an >individual a biologically better individual and nature >wants it transmitted to make a better species. How >can a homosexual gene mutation be nature's design to >improve the biologic species - since there is no >chance of its propagation? > Evolution is a value-free, undirected, non-progressive, random process. There is no design, teleology or idealism of any kind involved in it. There are no good or bad mutations. Mutations, which by chance happen to give a survival and/or reproductive advantage to an organism in a given environment, end up being more successfully transmitted. As for why mutation(s) underlying the predisposition to homosexuality have survived, even though they cannot be directly passed on to the offspring, there are many explanations, none of which are unique to homosexuality. Here are four such explanations: 1. These mutations in men might be X-linked and maternally transmitted. As you know, one of the X chromosomes is inactive in women. 2. The time that has elapsed since the emergence of these mutations, is not long enough for their complete elimination by natural selection. 3. These mutations might occur spontaneously de novo from time to time. 4. These mutations might also be responsible for bisexuality in some individuals. Cheers, Santosh
