Lies That Normalize Homosexuality & Why They Must Be Exposed

A colorful flag and loud voices demanding freedom to be different. They are no longer taboo; they're all over popular media, be it Hollywood or Bollywood, you can even find them in cartoon animations and kids' movies. Popular science is in their favor. They get acceptance and endorsement from ruling elites and famous celebrities. Speaking against them is against human rights, against human values, advancement, modernism, biology, history, nature, fashion, you name it. Still, I feel obliged to speak.

Is it natural?

Proponents of homosexuality cite studies that show that some 1500 animal species exhibit homosexual behavior, some of them having a 20% of gay couples within their communities¹, they argue that since there is obvious evidence of same-sex intimacy found in animals, thus it is something natural and innate.

Though the word 'natural' widely covers every natural phenomenon. However, when it is said that same-sex union is unnatural, it is not implied that it doesn't occur in nature but simply that it is non-productive or destructive to nature.

So, surely some animals do resort to it but homosexual behavior is not the only perversion in animals' life, when it comes to fulfilling their basic instincts, animals don't see if it is their sibling or parent, or son or daughter, or that they don't always seek the consent of their partner, or that they sometimes kill their offspring to take the mother to bed, or that they are simply animals - to them their needs are first and their needs are last. Is that the case with humans too?

Proponents of LGBT say that since it happens in the animal kingdom therefore it is not a disease but a natural tendency, this line of reasoning is flawed because what's natural for the animals is the tendency to fulfil their needs the way they can. They do not and they can not consider the consequences of their actions or the rationality of their actions. So something that is natural to animals isn't natural for humans as we can't help but assess our actions and make informed choices. Somewhere in some humans, there may be the desire to rip someone's insides apart and fulfil their appetite, like animals do, but how many of us would consider it natural for humans?

Is it a natural sexual orientation?

 Secondly, the biggest misconception in this regard is about the nature of animal homosexuality. Certain species of animals resort to 'homosexual behavior', they are not 'homosexual'. That is, they do not have it as a sexual orientation, i.e. a strict preference for same-sex partners. Animals resort to homosexual behavior either for pleasure or due to a shortage of opposite-sex partners, or because of unnatural or artificial living conditions.

A 2006 study studying female macaques proposed that the females were simply seeking sexual pleasure, and were using different movements to maximise it. "She can do so in a homosexual context just as easily as in a heterosexual context, so the behaviour spills over," says Paul Vasey.²
...the female albatrosses are not inherently homosexual. The Oahu population has a surplus of females as a result of immigration, so some females cannot find males to pair with. Studies of other birds suggest that same-sex coupling is a response to a shortage of males, and is much rarer if the sex ratio is equal. In other words, the female Laysan albatrosses probably wouldn't choose to pair with other females if there were enough males to go round.

The most notable examples which are often presented in support of homosexuality are Laysan Albatrosses, Bonobos and domestic sheep. It is said that 8% of domestic male sheep have a preference for males even in the presence of females, but the reason for their homosexual nature is because this breed of sheep is domesticated.

Domestic sheep have been carefully bred by farmers to produce females that reproduce as often as possible, which might have given rise to the homosexual males.³ (LeVay and Vasey)

The studies done on the subject of homosexuality are vastly misleading and biased, we see that even though research hasn't provided any meaningful or sufficient evidence for homosexuality being genetic or normal or healthy, yet the general notion in the scientific circles is that it is the case. There seems to be a social and political ambience influencing and promoting a bias. Out of thousands of animal species, only eight percent of just one animal breed are strictly homosexual and that too because of human intervention! How can such an occurrence be cited as evidence for anything?

 Humans are the only documented case of "true" homosexuality in wild animals.³ (LeVay and Vasey)

There are other researches, for example, one research has found that if an identical twin is gay, there is about a 20% chance that the sibling will have the same sexual orientation. While that's a greater likelihood than random, it's lower than you might expect for two people with the same genetic code. (Twins may have the same DNA but their genomes may be different due to gene copy number variations and also due to epigenetic differences. Although, copy number variations may cause one twin to have a different sexual orientation, epigenetic markers are mostly the cause of environment and lifestyle choices over time). Thus, for two very genetically identical people, a twenty percent chance is dramatically low and can easily be associated with environment or imitation.

Dr William Byne, editor-in-chief of the journal LGBT Health, believes sexuality may well be inborn, but thinks it could be more complicated than some scientists believe. He notes that the heritability of homosexuality is similar to that for divorce, but "social science researchers have not… searched for 'divorce genes'. Instead they have focused on heritable personality and temperamental traits that might influence the likelihood of divorce."

Last I checked, personality and temperamental traits can be changed or controlled for the better.

Researches on homosexuality and its role in evolution:

Could it be that homosexuality is detrimental to human evolution? The famous survival of the fittest is basically how evolution selects successful species for passing down their genes, and homosexuality is neither about survival and nor about being fit. Homosexual animals, pertaining to natural law, are incapable of passing on their genes to their offspring, thus rendering themselves unfit and halting the survival of their genes (that is, without Assisted Reproductive Techniques). As such, any species that resorts to strict homosexuality paves its way towards extinction. Say 50% of a certain species choose homosexuality, then it raises its chances of extinction by half, and over the next generations, if homosexuality prevails, the species would go extinct over time. Therefore, it is not an ideal choice or mode of living. It is similar to being an unfit and unhealthy participant in the evolutionary cycle.

Various theories have been offered trying to explain the evolutionary benefits of homosexual behavior—from the notion that homosexual men make more diligent uncles than their heterosexual counterparts (and thus are better at ensuring the survival of their relatives) to the notion that the same gene that codes for homosexuality in men makes women more fertile.
Now researchers from the University of Portsmouth in England have put forth a controversial new theory. They say homosexuality evolved in humans and other primates because it helps us form bonds with one another.

All these theories and researches are just as bogus as they sound, and in the absence of any true homosexuality found in animals, the theories about its supposed benefits are pointless. If these scientists are really trying to tell us that resorting to homosexual behavior due to scarcity of opposite-sex partners or exploring new arenas of pleasure can be helpful in successful evolution then they can just as well find some evolutionary plus points for eating our offspring alive. And in fact, according to scientists, there are more known evolutionary benefits of eating your offspring alive than there are benefits for homosexual behavior:

1. Previous studies have focused on the idea that parents might be eating their own eggs because they get an energy benefit from it and might be using it as a source of food when other sources were scarce.¹¹
2. Klug and Michael Bonsall at the University of Oxford  found that several factors contributed to parents developing a taste for their own offspring. In some cases, cannibalizing their own young puts the same evolutionary pressure on the eggs that a predator would: the faster the eggs develop, the greater their chances of survival.¹¹
3. Filial Cannibalism was also found to increase the parent's reproductive rate by apparently increasing mate attractiveness, though Klug says they're unsure as to why this might be.¹¹
4. And there are a few more benefits...

The point is that all the studies and theories and attempts to normalize homosexuality are just as good, and just as bad, as trying to normalize filial cannibalism in humans sometime in future by telling people the benefits it has.

Another big question is why we are constantly being told only about the plus points of homosexuality from popular media sites and credible scientific institutions? Why do no reliable studies show the adverse effects of this behavior? Is it the same reason why science doesn't talk about the adverse effects of filial cannibalism because obviously there are no adverse effects for the 'animals' as they don't care for any adverse effects, they're not emotional beings with any regard for ethics! The notion of adverse or unwanted effects only makes sense when it becomes a human concern. This is something worth pondering.

An unfit mode of living?

The only adverse effects acknowledged openly by the scientific institutions are the obvious health risks. These increased risks account for how, in evolutionary terms, homosexuality makes one an unfit candidate in the selection process. Homosexual men are at increased risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted infections, including hepatitis, human papillomavirus, herpes simplex, gonorrhoea, chlamydia and syphilis. (Mayo Clinic)
Similarly, homosexual women are also prone to some health problems, including both medical and psychological (though not as much as gay men are). When these couples wish to have children, the unnatural and artificial modes of conception also pose health risks.

Destructive to family structure:

The parental instinct makes us want to have children of our own. So just like everyone, homosexual couples also have the desire to have their own children. Animals may have resorted to homosexuality in nature, but it was not in nature to ever make such union fruitful. So this is where humans summoned medical science. With medical advancement and technology, it is possible for homosexual couples to have offspring that is at least the biological child of one partner.

They have two options in this regard (to get biological offspring); temporary heterosexual relationship and assisted reproduction. In both these methods, the child is deprived of his or her biological father or mother, while one of the partners in a homosexual relationship is not at all related to the child by blood. There is hardly any need to press on the fact that blood relations are irreplaceable, especially the natural bond between parents and children is superior to all relations we know of. Such love that is shared between biologically related family members usually does not develop between foster parents and siblings. In assisted reproductive techniques the donor or surrogate is not the same person each time, so all children of such couples are unrelated or half-siblings, therefore they also lack that blood relation that usual siblings share.

There is the option of adoption, which entails a similar lack of blood relation but it is the better option in contrast as one ends up giving care to someone who may not have it otherwise. However, it means making a sacrifice of not having biological children and accepting the demanding challenge of caring for an adopted child which can be difficult at times. And if the couple chooses to remain childless then they end up missing an important and beautiful part of life which is perhaps the reason why homosexual relationships usually do not last as long as heterosexual relationships, and the rate of separation and insincerity among such couples is dramatically higher. That is why despite the natural desire to have children, most homosexual couples choose not to have children, as there is an underlying lack of commitment in most of these relationships.

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years. [M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality]. 
The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual and lesbian "committed" relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is little evidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind of monogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbing possibility that behind the demands for "gay marriage" lurks an agenda of undermining the very nature of the institution of marriage. -  Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D. Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage and Family Studies Click here to read full article

Assisted Reproductive Techniques have helped many infertile couples to conceive who could not have had children otherwise... but for any infertile couple, ART is not the first choice of treatment, simply because of the risks attached (though uneconomic and high cost of the procedure is also a factor). Even though medical science has advanced greatly and such procedures are being performed now with more and more success, yet no medical practitioner would prefer it over natural ways of conception. It's because all such procedures come with a slightly higher chance of miscarriage and birth defects. The rise in homosexual marriages and their desire to have children, therefore, comes with an increased percentage of pregnancy complications and health-compromised children.

From the Marriage Equality Referendum
 (Ireland), a flyer urging to vote No.

Those who make it into the world fit and healthy may suffer from a lack of maternal or paternal love, or go through the pangs of never having seen their real parents as they grow up. It can be argued that many kids of heterosexual parents are also born or go through similar circumstances in life, however, we must understand that it is one thing to be unfortunate and another to choose misfortune. For here, we are choosing a life for these children. There is no doubt there can be some lucky ones who will receive all the love in the world but who can say how fair it is for the child to get either two fathers or two mothers instead of the usual pair which most other kids get? There's bound to be some sort of incompleteness in their life... The father and mother, as a male and female couple form a parental pair which is ideal in a way that one compliments the other. The womanly qualities of nurturing kids, their maternal heart, emotional responsiveness and higher tolerance are just as important for children as are the manly qualities of strength and stamina, practicality, emotional stability and higher endurance during stressful times. Having both a father and a mother associates with better emotional and psychological health throughout life.
Growing up without a father can permanently alter the brain: 

Dr Gabriella Gobbi, who carried out the research with colleagues at the medical faculty at McGill University in Canada, says: ‘This is the first time research findings have shown that paternal deprivation during development affects the neurobiology of the offspring'. (Children deprived of a father figure) have been shown to have an increased risk for deviant behaviour and in particular, girls have been shown to be at risk for substance abuse. Our results emphasise the importance of the father during critical neurodevelopmental periods, and that father absence induces impairments in social behaviour that persist to adulthood.’ Dr Gobbi said the results suggested both parents are vital for children’s mental health development and hoped the findings would spur researchers to look more deeply into the role of fathers. **

It can be argued that gender 'role-playing' can suffice the children's need for both parents such that one partner plays the role of mother on account of being more feminine while the other plays the role of a father on account of being more masculine but this setup is a make-believe notion that is not grounded in reality, and only causes more confusion for the child regarding gender roles.

It is common for a child raised by a single mom to look for a dad in a male relative, and same goes for a kid being raised by a single dad, to seek 'mom' in a female relative. A child's personality is balanced by the presence of both. We also learn our sexual roles from our parents. As is observed, a daughter with two female parents is more likely to be attracted to females as an adult - (Biblarz and Stacey, 2001)
Both environmental and genetic mechanisms might result in an increased likelihood for children who have a lesbian or gay parent to develop a homosexual orientation. Among the postulated environmental influences on gender role and sexual orientation are imitation, socialization, and promotion of tolerance. (Bailey, 1995)

It can be argued that a lot of kids are just born in unfavorable circumstances and thus develop imbalanced personalities but the difference here is that this is what was chosen for them, and this is becoming a trend, this is being promoted and this is being accepted. We are going to have more homosexual adults, and we are going to have more homosexual kids and teens and future generations.
With the rise of homosexual relationships, we will see a collapse in family structure, this is because the male-male setup or the female-female setup as parents in a family is not ideal and results in children with imbalanced personalities, who lack blood relations, who lack extended blood relations as well, who are inclined since childhood towards a certain sexual orientation thus causing the rate of homosexuality to increase further.

So, what we see in the long run are families where the partners aren't related by natural sex, furthermore, they do not naturally conceive, their kids are not related to them biologically, the siblings are often not biologically related, due to lack of immediate blood relations there is an obvious lack of extended blood relations such as grandmothers, aunts, uncles, cousins. All of this means nothing but total collapse of the definition of being a family! Strangers connected to form a family through artificial bonds... This is a huge cause for concern and there is no need to say that families held by such weak links are more prone to break up and fall apart later in life.

Destructive to society:

Couples who choose to have no children (and this is the majority), most are not truly committed and do not want to restrict themselves in a union that comes with responsibilities. Statistical data on registered same-sex unions also shows that the number of same-sex couples is dramatically higher than the number of registered same-sex unions in places where gay marriage is legal.

Statistics show us that rates of fidelity are generally very low when it comes to LGBT relationships. Promiscuity and the desire to experience more is also common among LGBT partners.

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners. [Paul Van de Ven et al., Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354]

 As homosexuality gets more common, along with it the idea of sexual freedom gets common. Promiscuity becomes common, traditional marriage loses value too. By making sex the primary focus of relationships while ignoring its consequences upon family life, we are promoting the idea that individual pleasure comes first. The lines that were once drawn for the good of all, are being crossed for the good of few; this sends the idea that the lines meant nothing. That when it comes to sexual desires, there should be no limits imposed. This is exactly the reason why along with the legalization of homosexuality a subsequent rise is being observed among other sexual orientations and perversions and the talk about legalizing them is striking the public ears.
If the consent is there, it should be allowed - ignore all the complications and the outcome, right? So just recently there was news of the German Ethics Council calling for the government to legalize Incest. I quote from the news article:

"In the case of consensual incest among adult siblings, neither the fear of negative consequences for the family, nor the possibility of the birth of children from such incestuous relationships can justify a criminal prohibition. The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination has more weight in such cases than the abstract protection of the family." - Ethics Council, Germany.

The above lines indicate how our thoughts have been molded, how our way of thinking has been changed entirely. How it is possible now to use the same line of reasoning which is used to justify homosexuality to use in justifying an indecent, immoral and to-this-date-abhorred act (as to whether it will be abhorred in the future is a valid question). It is as if we are absolutely oblivious of how these things will affect social and family life. And this is no exaggeration, by any means, especially when on articles like these you see some people speaking in support of, or showing indifference to such issues. When someone comments, 'So, what's the big deal about incest?' and you're at loss for words... then by the contrast of this silence what is being said now is not exaggeration but underestimation.

Though the concern for gay marriages paving way for incest, in particular, is not just due to change in thinking but the concern is real because the sperm donor culture and increased adoptions may truly raise the chances of incest. And this is just simple mathematics, as I will explain. Suppose that there are 1000 homosexual couples in a town who get babies through sperm donation or surrogacy. These donors and surrogates obviously play no part in raising the child, however, they are people who whether already have children or will have children of their own sometime soon. What are the chances of those 1000 kids coming across the kids of their biological parents? With more babies born through artificial techniques and children spending life away from biological parents and siblings, we will significantly raise the chances of incestuous relationships.

It's very likely for many of them to be in the same college or university, to meet somewhere else and be attracted to each other... (in fact some studies establish that they are more likely to be attracted to each other due to Genetic Sexual Attraction and the absence of Westermarck Effect). In short and simple words, Genetic Sexual Attraction is an overwhelming sexual attraction that is felt by genetically related adults who meet each other for the first time in their lives after having been separated. And Westermarck Effect is a phenomenon that makes us immune from having any sexual attraction towards our parents and siblings and all those persons with whom we spent the early years of our life in a home-like environment.

Here is an excerpt from an article in The Guardian that cites Genetic Sexual Attraction to justify incest:

You're 40, happily married - and then you meet your long-lost brother and fall passionately in love. This isn't fiction; in the age of the sperm donor, it's a growing reality: 50% of reunions between siblings, or parents and offspring, separated at birth result in obsessive emotions. Last month, a former police officer was convicted of incest with his half-sister - but should we criminalize a bond hardwired into our psychology? Alix Kirsta talks to those who have suffered the torment of 'genetic sexual attraction' - The Guardian, May 2003

Miley Cyrus, the popular child star of the
Disney show 'Hannah Montana', an icon
followed by children and teens around the world,
 is a controversially vulgar pop star today.
Inspiring millions of fans and followers.

Another perversion that is being promoted in subtle ways over the media is Pedophilia. It's common to see child-like young women in magazines, seeing children in sensual dressing, singing or dancing on TV programs, or the popular children's dolls with luscious lips and heavy mascara. The idea is to portray children as sexual objects, but maybe Freud already gave that idea. Today, we are working to turn children into sexual objects; turning Hannah Montanas into vulgar pop stars inspiring millions of kids worldwide. In 2010, two psychologists in Canada made national news when they declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality. In the same year, Harvard Health Publications reported: 

“Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

Over the internet, one can find such attempts to legalize these sexual disorders. Often, psychologists may show a soft corner for pedophiles, painting them in a picture where they're the victims of nature and helpless at the hands of their mental disposition. All of this is just the beginning of an era paving grounds for society to stoop lower and lower in pursuit of pleasure.

Several years ago, homosexuality was a mental disorder; today pedophilia or incest is. It won't take long till it becomes a legalized sexual interest. Since there is nothing inside the body that labels genes as sick or healthy, we judge associated behavior the way we like. With roughly about 30 known perversions that people associate with, the world will be able to boast a variety in the coming future, all safe and legal.

Coming back to the prospect of being natural, whether genetics is at play or not, the question that lies at the heart of it all is simple. Should you do something if you're naturally drawn to it? Should a person attracted to his sibling try to overcome and fight such a desire or act upon it? A man attracted to a young child needs to control his desires or go about fulfilling them? If they act on their desires, what are its implications upon the social and family life? Should there be any lines that can't be crossed... or is everything fair in lust and war?

---

1. Wikipedia.
2. Male–Female and Female–Female Mounting in Japanese Macaques: A Comparative Study of Posture and Movement. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-005-9007-1
3. Are there any homosexual animals? http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animal

** (Even though this study is about children raised by single mothers but it is indicative of something. As for the studies done on lesbian or gay parents, first of all, such couples are few in number, plus they form a part of the study, so they know they are being observed and studied upon - therefore, such studies are hardly reliable or practical). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2518247/Growing-father-permanently-alter-BRAIN-Fatherless-children-likely-grow-angry-turn-drugs.html#ixzz3Tr4bbjih
11. Why some animals eat their offspring https://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html