Gay Teen Suicide: A Range of Causes

The case has been presented that the ratio of gays experiencing deleterious conditions is higher than heterosexuals. That would seem to suggest that gayness exacerbates this behavior.

 

If any simple mind sick freak wants to commit suicide....Oh Well.

They must know and realize theirs something terribly wrong with themselves at a younger age, than when they become older.

Well at least they were right about that.​

 

It's hard to measure success in reparative therapy when any therapist who practices it is under the gun for losing his licensing and career, wouldn't you say?

Lovely how the gays have that all tied up, bound and gagged in the basement. Hard to get a witness to testify with duct tape wrapped around his face and his hands tied behind his back.

"BS theories and mad science"? The food you eat is a result of sexual orientation being trainable. I guarantee it. If you've had a hamburger or bacon in the last week, the chances are excellent it came to this world through a male mammal that had his sexual orientation foisted upon him purposefully by trainers using classical conditioning.

Here, read the bit on stallions again. The basic techniques as to pigs, cattle, sheep and goats, dogs, etc. etc. apply. All mammals are susceptible to conditioned compulsive behaviors [also known as "orientations"]. Once the behavior is imprinted, the response is subconscious, and may even feel innate. Biology refresher: homo sapiens are mammals..

These aren't BS theories. The animal handlers take these FACTS to the bank every day. You'd starve for protein without these FACTS and many exotic species would've become extinct without these FACTS since zoo stud animals are all trained to perform using classical conditioning just like the above.

Sorry to burst your "let's keep the origins of homosexuality foggy" bubble. Animal science has long ago cleared that up and shone the light of day on these acquired behaviors.. Note the underlined sentence above. Classical conditioning as to orientation is so strong that even just the sight of the animal's halter and lead rope can cause him to get an erection. Properly that halter and lead rope are both part of his new artificial orientation.

Someone spoke about not being molested. Fine. Some deviants can become compulsively conditioned to be aroused at accidental pairings with the first few orgasms. Women's pheremones are present all around. If a young male is shy or frustrated at lack of access to females, he may turn to his buddy for the first few orgasms and in a short while he has trained himself to be gay. This is a large part of "natural gay animals" you hear the advocates speak about. Dominant males create the perfect conditions for frustrated male bachelor herds in a sea of females they can smell but cannot get near for fear of death. So many odd behaviors explained with one simple premise: that classical conditioning works. Occam would be pleased as punch. So would Skinner and Pavlov..

 

All-righty. Interesting argument. One question, do the AI handlers have to use pheromones from an estrus female in-order to have success in this situation? Because if that's the case, they're still being aroused by the same thing that would have aroused them if a female animal were actually present. So, I'm not sure if it really supports your argument.

Another issue I have that I pointed out in an earlier post is that, human attraction goes beyond sexual arousal. There's a lot more to it than that. i'll just copy what I wrote earlier:

Nope. It's very simplistic to bring it all down to sexual arousal, while it is a very large component of most romantic relationships, I would argue that there are many feelings that come up when you are attracted to someone in a more than a friend kind of way that are romantic but not sexual. I think there's just more to it than that, the butterflies in the stomach, the not being able to take your eyes of the person, wanting to be around them, be close with them, etc. are all romantic feelings that while often coincide with sexual feelings in most people, aren't inherently sexual themselves. There's a very large emotional component as well. If homosexuality were merely a fetish, then it would simply be about just sexual arousal for people, but it's not. So, I don't believe it's comparable to someone having a foot fetish or a latex fetish or whatever.

I doubt self-training works. Most gay people try to "self-train" themselves to be straight with no success.

And again, the Mayo Clinic's report does not support most of your claims. I've already demonstrated this.

 

Yes, but these gay people are still in the minority. They don't make up most of the population. And the social stigma surrounding gay people exacerbates the behavior, but it is not inherent in homosexuality.

 

In-order for homosexuality to be considered a disorder it would have to be the cause of distress in an individual. It's not. The social stigma surrounding homosexuality is. It's pretty simple.

This is...just...not accurate. Something I see a lot in political/religious discussions is that a person from one side of an argument will demonize and generalize the other side. They will also very openly assume that the other side is "in denial" and deep down they know the "truth." This is something most people do in these debates, and it seems just getting a handle on the frustration that arrises when someone has an opposite stance on something than you do. It's also probably a little bit of a defense mechanism. This is why Christians will assume Atheists (and vice versa) are all simply in denial about their beliefs or lack thereof. It's not a good habit to get into. If you're a true seeker of truth, it's not the way to go.

 

If it doesn't cause distress, then what's the gay teen suicide thing all about? You can say it's from society bearing down on them all you like but they're killing themselves in Castro even surrounded by nothing but gay "love".

So the jury is still out on where the source of the angst is. And Mayo's findings about trained orientation, alongside the entire ag industry's de facto practice that is the case across mammalian species lends weight to the OP scenario:

It might have something to do with being first tampered with and then treated like a disposable piece of meat by the gay community itself:

At least in Jack McKinley's case as a tampered-with street urchin who grew too old in his late teens for Harvey Milk's sexual appetite, we have that link to suicide. The gay community's response [through the mouth of it's erstwhile leader Milk] told the sexual object-grown-too-old to "not make a mess" when he [it] committed suicide. Tons of compassion there. And if McKinley wanted reparative therapy, here's what he was up against:

"Education" eh? I think I read about that type of "education" in a book called A Brave New World.

You haven't demostrated squat. You've said a lot of things but you haven't lined up the data with links like I have. Volume isn't an acceptable substitute for substance in this debate.

If you were reading what I've written here, it would make sense that an older/fixated [that can be just beyond the first few imprinting intances that fix the orientation] person would have difficulty retraining themselves. Once the orientation goes into the subconscious and reflexive/compulsive parts of the brain, you can try all you like. Without a professional helping you, you're not going to have much success. And that actually supports two things.

1. That we fully be aware of how sexual orientation can be trained in mammals and we try to handle the gay culture accordingly and

2. Reparative therapy is essential to those people who were tampered with, have unwanted homophilia and who are becoming desperate enough to end their lives in a way same or simliar to the scenario in the OP.

 

I have a dare for you, Silhoutte. I dare you to respond to everything I have written here. Not just some of it, all of it.

Do you have statistics to support this claim?

Nah. I don't think the jury is still out. There are a lot of homeless gay teens who have been kicked out of their homes living in San Francisco. I would imagine that experience, regardless of who you are surrounded by, would cause a lot of distress. All you have to do is ask a gay person where the distress would come from and most say the same thing in regards to their sexual orientation. But you choose to turn a blind eye to that. The testimonies of millions of gay people mean nothing.

And, again, you have yet to respond to the fact that the Mayo says to be weary of child molesters who claim they were molested as children. Why is that?

And also, why did you not respond to what I have to say about your "training sexual arousal in mammals" argument?

Sixteen is the age on consent in many states. So, while a bit young for many adults, it's perfectly legal in many places. To try and paint Harvey as a sexual predator would be stretching it a lot, especially if you read more about Jack and Harvey's relationship than just the two smalls out of context excerpts. Harvey's next boyfriend was 24, hardly a child.

Now, to go into more detail about Jack and Harvey's relationship:

"Jack Mckinley was a paradox, Harvey complained. At times he was the bright, vivacious charmer Harvey had fallen in love with. But from the start, he had also been given moody fits of depression. The psychiatrist had a word for the contradictions: manic-depressive." (p.35)

"Friends first attributed the problems to his background. Jack had, after all, been the youngest of a large, impoverish brood, raised on the strict backwater fundamentalism common among the poor families of rural Appalachia. The way Jack told it, the sin of sodom was, to his family, only slightly less heinous than matricide. It was hardly a prescription for good health." (p.36)

"Early on Jack discovered he had one trump card that was guaranteed to light the short fuse of Harvey's temper-the suicide thread" (p.36)

So, it was hardly a healthy relationship, but it was not Milk that led Jack to depression. And it was the fact that Jack had repeatedly made threats of suicide to Harvey as a mode of manipulation, that led Harvey to have such a callous response in that excerpt. Also, Jack didn't kill himself when he was a teenager. He was 33.

Reparative therapy can be very harmful, and has a very low success rate (if it has any success rate at all which I doubt it does). Reparative therapy is based on misconceptions about homosexuality and sexuality in general. Perhaps someone should create a more healthy/effective approach?

Again, I would imagine if I have failed in my arguments, then they would be very easy to refute. So, why don't you go and do that? Why do you pick and choose random arguments and then change your focus?

You keep claiming that being molested can turn someone into a pedophile. You base this off of findings in the Mayo Clinic report, but then ignore the Mayo Clinic when it says to be weary of these findings. Why is that?

And yet, this argument is still based on a slew of assumptions that you have yet to properly support. I'll repeat myself again:

The argument that you have presented pretty much assume that gay people were molested when they kids which resulted in them being gay as adults. You come to this conclusion because many child abusers say that they were abused as children (of course this study involves men only). As I've already pointed out, there is too much room for bias to take their word for it just yet. Your trusted source, the Mayo Clinic, points this out twice in the article that you derived this information from.
You then assume that if abuse can turn a person into a pedophile then it can probably turn them into a homosexual as well. As I said in my previous post, this is assumes that homosexual pedophiles have more in common with homosexual teleiophiles than they do with heterosexual pedophiles. Evidence suggests this is not the case, homosexual pedophiles have more in common with heterosexual pedophiles than they do with homosexual teleiophiles (http://www.springerlink.com/content/u468p10062680346/.
Then you suggest that the higher rates of promiscuity, depression, drug use, suicide, etc. in the gay community is not due to the social stigma attached to their sexuality, but that they know deep down that their "compulsive attraction" is in contradiction to what their inner-being really is. If this were indeed the case then that would suggest that everyone's "inner-being" would be heterosexual teleiophilia. But the Mayo Clinic, once again, does not agree:

And then you still haven't responded to my thoughts on your "sexual orientation being trained in mammals" argument.

 

Maybe we need to look at what stages the suicidal individual must go through to pull the trigger. What do you think of the role of stress? Can it be that his make-up as a person (i.e. sexual orientation, thought/emotional processing, physical abilities) are in such a sharp contradiction to his environmental constraints that his stress level goes beyond control? To actually pull the trigger, he must stop processing "what-if" questions, and be in a "don't-fight-but-run" type panic in his mind. It is usually very difficult to reach this level of stress, the victim must be in clear and present danger, such as a torture-execution sentence, or a prolonged psychological pressure that deprives him from regular sleep and gradually chips away from his ability to periodically restore daily functioning. What's your take? Do you have more hints?

 

????? I suspect the social stigma surrounding the eating of ones nose boogers causes distress among booger eaters. That doesnt mean that society has a duty to eliminate the stigma surrounding eating boogers so the booger eaters can feel better about themselves.

 

Do you have 'statistics for your claim?

 

Dixon, you are a character. Does it not go without saying that the social stigma surrounding homosexuality is worse than that booger eaters? Is this thread not evidence of that? Kids being taught that homosexuality is wrong, being made fun of in school, getting kicked out of their homes, etc. That would be enough to make someone depressed.

http://www.apa.org/research/action/gay.aspx (I know you guys aren't gonna like that one but I figured I'd throw it in anyway)


http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/11/1869

 

I'll say it again, and then maybe it will sink in. You have this mental block to considering the Mayo Clinic and Clinical Psychiatrists' findings that massive depression in gay men is linked to having been molested as kids. In the Mayo's findings they inadvertently link pedophilia to homosexuality by stating that adult pedophiles statistically are predisposed [pre-disposed] to targeting children of the same age group they were when molested themselves in the abused-abuser cycle that is pedophlia. You can argue all day and night that an adult pedophile may have been predisposed [trained] to crave childen the age he was when molested [the imprinted specific-sexual scenario] but that "doesn't mean he craves the same gender-gender parameters too". But we all know that argument will fall flat on its face. If the pedophile is targeting very specific ages, he's going to also be attracted to very specific gender too that fits the original molesting scenario.

You cannot simply declare that the OP's hypothetical suicide scenario "just can't be true" without systematically sweeping away reams of data to the contrary. We have:

1. Evidence that sexual orientation is trained in mammals, including human mammals.

2. Evidence that there is a disproportionate preponderance of homosexuals in the ranks of pedophlies.

3. Evidence that adult pedophiles often abuse in the same way they were abused, even down to specific ages.

4. Evidence that Harvey Milk [the "Mayor of Castro"/ the revered icon of the gay community] targeted a specific age group and once those ages were passed in the boys he harvested to have sex with, he summarily discarded them one by one: treating them like meat.

5. Evidence that gay massive depression and even suicide are interlinked with history of having been molested as a child.

You provided one link for the APA as "evidence of your stance". Since the APA is owned by the gay community, evidenced by the fact that it dictates whether or not a gay person may receive reparative therapy, even if they badly want it: ie, they simply won't allow a person to seek that therapy at all, I cannot take anything the APA says seriously. It would be like me asking you to take seriously a study done by the Baptist church on "why homos are an abomination in the eyes of God". It's that biased.

Read the 5 known facts above and re-read the OP scenario:

 

Silhouette, do you think you might be in denial a little bit? You have continuously avoided refuting my arguments, again you're simply just repeating yourself. It's not a rational way to debate. I am more than willing to respond to everything you've written in response to me, and have. That's how a productive debate works. This is a nice little flow chart demonstrating how debates should go:



This is obviously, because of the way you have approached this discussion, not how our debate has gone. If I had any sense I would have stopped responding to you by now, but I don't. So, here we go...

Now, there could be multiple possibilities for this. The first one, is that many homosexuals do tend to be more effeminate as children. It indeed could be that they are being targeted because of this.

Another possibility is that it's simply more likely for gay men to report abuse than it is for straight men because there isn't as much shame surrounding a man being abused in the gay community as there is in the straight community.

These are just possibilities. On to the rest...

I'm just gonna quote the Mayo Clinic on this one (again, i believe this is the 3rd time? Still no response from you.):

Ah. An actual rebuttal. Thank you.

My argument was that the pedophile is going to be trained desire an age group and gender, but the difference between pedophiles and teleiophiles is that pedophiles put a much bigger emphasis on age. If gender mattered more than they would be having sex with the same gender regardless of age, but that's not the case.

I bet you're not going to respond to the majority of the following...

All-righty. Interesting argument. One question, do the AI handlers have to use pheromones from an estrus female in-order to have success in this situation? Because if that's the case, they're still being aroused by the same thing that would have aroused them if a female animal were actually present. So, I'm not sure if it really supports your argument.

Another issue I have that I pointed out in an earlier post is that, human attraction goes beyond sexual arousal. There's a lot more to it than that. i'll just copy what I wrote earlier:

Nope. It's very simplistic to bring it all down to sexual arousal, while it is a very large component of most romantic relationships, I would argue that there are many feelings that come up when you are attracted to someone in a more than a friend kind of way that are romantic but not sexual. I think there's just more to it than that, the butterflies in the stomach, the not being able to take your eyes of the person, wanting to be around them, be close with them, etc. are all romantic feelings that while often coincide with sexual feelings in most people, aren't inherently sexual themselves. There's a very large emotional component as well. If homosexuality were merely a fetish, then it would simply be about just sexual arousal for people, but it's not. So, I don't believe it's comparable to someone having a foot fetish or a latex fetish or whatever.

The mayo clinic says this:

You have to differentiate between a pedophile and teleiophile.

Mayo Clinic:

I'll just repeat myself again:

Sixteen is the age on consent in many states. So, while a bit young for many adults, it's perfectly legal in many places. To try and paint Harvey as a sexual predator would be stretching it a lot, especially if you read more about Jack and Harvey's relationship than just the two smalls out of context excerpts. Harvey's next boyfriend was 24, hardly a child.

Now, to go into more detail about Jack and Harvey's relationship:

"Jack Mckinley was a paradox, Harvey complained. At times he was the bright, vivacious charmer Harvey had fallen in love with. But from the start, he had also been given moody fits of depression. The psychiatrist had a word for the contradictions: manic-depressive." (p.35)

"Friends first attributed the problems to his background. Jack had, after all, been the youngest of a large, impoverish brood, raised on the strict backwater fundamentalism common among the poor families of rural Appalachia. The way Jack told it, the sin of sodom was, to his family, only slightly less heinous than matricide. It was hardly a prescription for good health." (p.36)

"Early on Jack discovered he had one trump card that was guaranteed to light the short fuse of Harvey's temper-the suicide thread" (p.36)

So, it was hardly a healthy relationship, but it was not Milk that led Jack to depression. And it was the fact that Jack had repeatedly made threats of suicide to Harvey as a mode of manipulation, that led Harvey to have such a callous response in that excerpt. Also, Jack didn't kill himself when he was a teenager. He was 33.

For the sake of saving room, I addressed this at the top.

The study the APA was referencing was not conducted by the APA. But I did provide a second link because I knew you guys weren't going to be down with my using anything that has the "APA" written on it.

If you're argument didn't have so many holes in it then your scenario might be plausible. But..alas...

 

I don't answer your plethora of questions all in one post because I'm sensing you are obfuscating important singular points on purpose in order to smokescreen their impact and bury them/make them go away. You're just going to have to accept that the topic of gay teen suicide is much too important to bury causal agents that surface in a sea of sidelines.

What are you saying? That homosexual pedophiles target "effeminate" boys because they resemble females more? And while we're on that subject, why is it that "butch gay" men are attracted to "femme" gay partners? No, really? If that isn't closet heterosexuality, or at the least patent psychological confusion and overt signs of sexual issues, I don't know what is..

False.

Let's visit the 2007 Mayo Clinic report again: http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Males who molest boy children exclusively are called homosexual pedophlies. Please get your terminology in line with the researchers.

I find the most important word in that statement the word "trained". Thank you. At last we have a common ground about sexual orientation that we can move forward from in agreement.

Given, now that you and I agree that sexual orientations can be "trained", how is it that homosexual orientation is the exception? Remember, I will post data that shows that sexual orientation can be trained across mammalian species. I will post data that shows how it can be trained across mammalian species. You may have heard of "classical conditioning". It's offered in bonehead psych. classes from sea to shining sea.

Please answer just the question marked in bold to keep the flow simple and easy to follow, so that key revelations about gay teen suicide aren't buried and lost in diversions..

You know that my arguments rest on the premise that sexual orientation can be trained/affected/coerced from without, the environment and not the individual. Let's keep the questions to core issues like these and branch outward from there.. Remember, we're trying to save lives, not see who can win an intellectual jousting match..

 

LOLOL!! You present one study from the 50s that claims

"homosexuals were as psychologically normal as heterosexuals"

and then a second study from 2001 that merely suggests that the reason they are not psychologically normal is the fault of the discrimination. LOLOL! And certainly the discrimination of the 50s when homosexuals were psychologically normal, was ten fold what it is today.

"Higher levels of discrimination may underlie recent observations of greater psychiatric morbidity risk among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals."

Only demonstrates the absurdity of the whole field of study that desparately grasps for evidence to believe what they so desparately want to believe.

 

As going through depression as a teen, being in groups and knowing more depressed gay teens than I can count, anything is possible, anything can trigger a strong enough emotional reaction to commit suicide.

And this argument over "homosexuality" and whether it's genetic or not is ridiculous as people who think it isn't genetic probably don't even have a close gay friend.
Unless you think everyone is born bisexual and has to force themselves to like the opposite sex so they wont anger God? Seem's a bit silly.

And the bias studies are a bit too much, especially ones against homosexuality. Why can an animal be born gay but a human can not? Is it because we're special in some way? Humans are just tamed beasts. When it comes right down to it, when it's life or death, the true beasts come out, and it isn't pretty. We are no more special than our pet dogs and cats when it comes to biological genes.

 

How is addressing all of your points making a "smokescreen"? Indeed, if I were avoiding your points, then I would be making a smokescreen. Do you not know how debates work? You present as argument, then I present a rebuttal, then you present rebuttal to my rebuttal, etc. So, far you've just ignored all of my rebuttals, if they're flawed, then why note refute them?

No. It would probably because they'll assume that child is gay and will enjoy it more, as another poster pointed out earlier.

Um. I kind of had to laugh at this. You haven't heard the phrase "no fatties no femmes" before. Masculine men are put on a pedestal in the gay community, effeminate men are not. Butch/femme relationships in the gay community are rare. Which is a shame. This would be one article on the topic: http://www.afterelton.com/askmonkey/uncaged-butch-versus-femme?page=0,0

Have I not used the term "homosexual pedophiles" in previous posts? I'm arguing that a homosexual pedophile is not the same as a homosexual teleiophile.

What do you think of this from the Mayo Clinic report:

This finding does not imply that ho- mosexuals are more likely to molest children,

I should have wrote "if it's trained" as I did in previous posts. So, nope. Nice try.

We don't agree.

Why haven't you responded to my posts on that data? I know you will show it, but this discussion isn't going to be productive if you are just going to ignore my response on the topic.

Here I will post it again, and you will ignore it again. Why? I don't know. I can only assume you simply don't have an argument against it:

All-righty. Interesting argument. One question, do the AI handlers have to use pheromones from an estrus female in-order to have success in this situation? Because if that's the case, they're still being aroused by the same thing that would have aroused them if a female animal were actually present. So, I'm not sure if it really supports your argument.

Another issue I have that I pointed out in an earlier post is that, human attraction goes beyond sexual arousal. There's a lot more to it than that. i'll just copy what I wrote earlier:

Nope. It's very simplistic to bring it all down to sexual arousal, while it is a very large component of most romantic relationships, I would argue that there are many feelings that come up when you are attracted to someone in a more than a friend kind of way that are romantic but not sexual. I think there's just more to it than that, the butterflies in the stomach, the not being able to take your eyes of the person, wanting to be around them, be close with them, etc. are all romantic feelings that while often coincide with sexual feelings in most people, aren't inherently sexual themselves. There's a very large emotional component as well. If homosexuality were merely a fetish, then it would simply be about just sexual arousal for people, but it's not. So, I don't believe it's comparable to someone having a foot fetish or a latex fetish or whatever.

 

You're argument doesn't make sense. The Evelyn Hooker study shows that homosexuality is not pathological. In the sense that it would not be the cause of distress of an individual. The second study shows that what would be the cause of distress in an individual would be social stigma (what I was arguing). The two don't contradict each-other. Read more carefully.

 

Considering that your link doesnt even contain the word "pathological", and it does quite clearly contain the quoted passage

We can see that it is your arguments that dont make sense.

Actually they directly contradict each other.

"homosexuals were as psychologically normal as heterosexuals"

directly contradicts

"lesbians and gay men are at higher risk for stress-sensitive psychiatric disorders than are heterosexual persons. "

 

??? What animals are born "gay" and how exactly would you define that word? I think its silly to apply such human concepts to the animal kingdom.

 

Gay as in homosexuality. Homosexuality as in the urge to mate with someone in your own species that is of the same sex. You can look it up on Google, there are animals that have been born, and soon as they reached the age of breeding, go around sticking their penis into other males, but refuse to do it with a female.

Now this is only true for males, as when a fetus is in the female, because the fetus is the opposite sex, female hormones attack the fetus. Now this effect can have a very strong effect on the male and make it "homosexual" when it is born, but usually this happens after a couple births as the female hormones attack the next male fetus more fiercely than the one before.

Now if you find that complete bullspit, it doesn't change the fact that animals are in fact, born homosexual, no human interaction to turn them gay, no other gay animals around, just a strong urge to do it with the same sex. It's almost impossible to know if a female is born homosexual, they may hump other females regularly and refuse males, but it's just harder to know.

Now if you want to say humans are special because they are created in the image of God, bla bla bla, that is complete BS, as there are countless studies that show when a human isn't socialized into our society, and is left in the wild, or left away from other humans, they act as an animal, they don't stand straight up, they don't walk like we do, they pretty much act like monkeys. If humans were actually pure and perfect as God created them, if humans didn't socialize them into society, instinctively, they'd still walk up straight, and act semi-normal to our standards.

 

Its a physical impossibility.

"Urge"??? How the hell do you detect that in an animal? First time I saw the neighbors dog mount and hump another neighbors male dog, I might have thought the dog had an "urge" to mount and hump "with someone in your own species that is of the same sex", but then over the years I have seen him mount and hump the sofa, stuffed teddy bear, my leg and a basket ball and realized that this isnt at all what he had an "urge" for. Especially when they brought over another purebred Akita to actually "mate" with. He REALLY had an "urge" to "mate" with a female in heat. And I had never seen two dogs "tied" before by their genitals after mating for 15 minutes. That fortunately never happened with my leg.

WOW!!! never heard of such a thing. I cant seem to find anything in a google search. And I dont think male penguins in captivity, with a shortage of females who bond with other males and mimick nesting behavior is any more evidence of being born homosexual, than the abundance of homosexual behavior in prisons is evidence the prisoners were born gay. And I didnt see anything about actually "sticking their penis into other males". And I suspect if you put a receptive, in season female penguin in front of those penguins, they would be all over it.

I dont doubt that males could fail to completely develope a male sexuality and therefore not develope the normal desire to mate with females. Only leaving the option of being "mated" so to speak or penetrated by another male.

Well, like I said, I couldnt find any such thing in a google search, so until I see it, I'm kind of beginning to think that maybe you just made that part up.

???? Im an atheist. If I were to guess, absent social, moral, cultural, traditional, legal and religious influences, human sexuality would probably more closely resemble that of bonnobo chimps, where sex is frequent, with many different partners of both sexes, and the raising and caring of offspring is purely the role of females. But even among bonnobo chimps, the type of "homosexuality" you speak of is unheard of. They have an urge to be sexually aroused and experience orgasms. They dont have an urge for the same sex.

 

The keyword in the APA is "inherently." If homosexuals were "inherently less mentally healthy than heterosexuals" that would imply it was pathological.

Context: Evelyn Hooker's pioneering research debunked the popular myth that homosexuals are inherently less mentally healthy than heterosexuals, leading to significant changes in how psychology views and treats people who are gay.

The fact that no differences were found between gay and straight participants sparked more research in this area and began to dismantle the myth that homosexual men and women are inherently unhealthy.

What the Evelyn Hooker herself says in the study: "homosexuals were not inherently abnormal and that there was no difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in terms of pathology."

The three tests that were used were "the Rorschach, in which people describe what they see in abstract ink blots, the Thematic Apperception Test [TAT] and the Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test), in which people tell stories about different pictures. " These tests are used to test underlying thought/personality disorders, motivations, perceptions, etc. in an individual. They were testing if homosexuality, itself, was a pathology.

Indeed the wording in this sentence is a bit suspect and can be misleading out of context: "Based on these findings, Dr. Hooker tentatively suggested that homosexuals were as psychologically normal as heterosexuals."

 

Boy you just bob and weave, duck and jibe all over the place.
"homosexual and heterosexuals did not differ significantly. Based on these findings,". The APA article didnt find ANY differences, inherent or otherwise. Your second article 50 years later accepts these differences as fact and seeks to explain them.