random item

Troperville

Tools

Find recent edits by troper:

back to: UsefulNotes / Homosexual

edit article | go to discussion page

14th Apr '13 1:11:45 PM slvstrChung

Send slvstrChung a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 33,34 (click to see context) from:

The growing acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle ''does'' bring up one issue that, for good or ill, even open-minded straight people could consider problematic: the idea of single-gender parenting. What ''are'' the implications on childhood if a child HasTwoMommies or HasTwoDaddies? Religious conservatives would have you believe that this will result in all manner of perversions, like child abuse, MindRape and bestiality. What little scientific research has been done, however, suggests that if anything the opposite is true: homosexual parents tend to be more settled, more sane and more involved as parents--in general, better. Supporters like to point out that gay couples don't get accidentally pregnant quite as often as straight ones; they have to take very active steps and thus have plenty of time to prepare (or back out). They are also a great boon to the adoption industry. Thus far, claims that open homosexuality will bring about TheEndOfTheWorldAsWeKnowIt are either being subverted or inverted.

to:

The growing acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle ''does'' bring up one issue that, for good or ill, even open-minded straight people could consider problematic: the idea of single-gender parenting. What ''are'' the implications on childhood if a child HasTwoMommies or HasTwoDaddies? Religious conservatives would have you believe that this will result in all manner of perversions, like brainwashing, bestiality and [[ArsonMurderAndJaywalking liberalism]]. What little scientific research has been done, however, suggests that if anything the opposite is true: homosexual parents tend to be more settled, more sane and more involved as parents--in general, better. Supporters like to point out that gay couples are somewhat less likely to encounter a SurprisePregnancy than are straight ones; they have to take very active steps before obtaining a child, and thus have plenty of time to prepare (or back out). They are also a great boon to the adoption industry, which itself is flourishing to a rather disturbing degree due to three-hit combo of MissConception, TeenPregnancy and GoodGirlsAvoidAbortion. Thus far, claims that open homosexuality will bring about TheEndOfTheWorldAsWeKnowIt are either being subverted or inverted.

17th Mar '13 6:03:49 PM JustLetItBe

Send JustLetItBe a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

its not trendy at all for guys to identify as bi. Society sees bi girls as hots, society sees bi guys as gays in denial.

Changed line(s) 25,26 (click to see context) from:

to:

6th Mar '13 3:01:05 AM rukimi

Send rukimi a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:

Since homosexuality is harmless as far as sexual abnormalities go, why is there so much hostility towards and/or disapproval of it? One interpretation has to do with conditions people have lived in through history. In the past, child mortality rates were horrific; an average of ''one child in two'' died before the age of five[[note]]Today, it's one in twenty, and that's the the lowest it's ever been; just sixty years ago, it was ''three'' of twenty[[/note]]. DeathByChildbirth was also a major risk, which was even worse because it killed not only the mother, but every child she might have had thereafter. Long story short, you wanted every able-bodied male and female available to be involved in the process of continuing the species. Men and women not interested in reproducing (because they wanted to get busy with their own sex exclusively) added nothing to the process. It should be pointed out that in most cultures, however, having gay sex ''on the side'' was okay (in fact, sometimes man-on-man sex was considered a ''virtue''. Women-on-women was seen as non-existent or rare as it was commonly believed in patriarchal societies that women had no sexualities and only had sex to procreate), or given a blind eye, as long as you were still pumping out babies.

to:

Since homosexuality is harmless as far as sexual abnormalities go, why is there so much hostility towards and/or disapproval of it? One interpretation has to do with conditions people have lived in through history. In the past, child mortality rates were horrific; an average of ''one child in two'' died before the age of five[[note]]Today, it's one in twenty, and that's the the lowest it's ever been; just sixty years ago, it was ''three'' of twenty[[/note]]. DeathByChildbirth was also a major risk, which was even worse because it killed not only the mother, but every child she might have had thereafter. Long story short, you wanted every able-bodied male and female available to be involved in the process of continuing the species. Men and women not interested in reproducing (because they wanted to get busy with their own sex exclusively) added nothing to the process. It should be pointed out that in most cultures, however, having gay sex ''on the side'' was okay (in fact, sometimes man-on-man sex was considered a ''virtue''. Women-on-women was seen as non-existent as it was commonly believed in patriarchal societies that they had no sexualities and only had sex to procreate), or given a blind eye, as long as you were still pumping out babies.

6th Mar '13 2:57:40 AM rukimi

Send rukimi a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:

Since homosexuality is harmless as far as sexual abnormalities go, why is there so much hostility towards and/or disapproval of it? One interpretation has to do with conditions people have lived in through history. In the past, child mortality rates were horrific; an average of ''one child in two'' died before the age of five[[note]]Today, it's one in twenty, and that's the the lowest it's ever been; just sixty years ago, it was ''three'' of twenty[[/note]]. DeathByChildbirth was also a major risk, which was even worse because it killed not only the mother, but every child she might have had thereafter. Long story short, you wanted every able-bodied male and female available to be involved in the process of continuing the species. Men and women not interested in reproducing (because they wanted to get busy with their own sex exclusively) added nothing to the process. It should be pointed out that in most cultures, however, having gay sex ''on the side'' was okay (in fact, sometimes man-on-man sex was considered a ''virtue''), or given a blind eye, as long as you were still pumping out babies.

to:

26th Nov '12 9:46:30 AM Peryton

Send Peryton a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 9,10 (click to see context) from:

to:

Many animal species include homosexual members, just like humans do; and since it's such a widespread phenomenon, biologists theorize that homosexuality in a population must be an adaptive trait despite the stigma. When the population equals or exceeds the food supply, homosexual (and asexual) members of a population can contribute to the well-being of the community, but do not add more children. The end result is that the children of the straight and bi members of the population have a better environment and a better chance of surviving because there are more people to support each child. Infant mortality goes down, the next generation is smaller but healthier, and the genes for homosexuality are passed down to the next generation through their siblings, who are more likely to survive because of the improved environment. In other species, homosexuality actually does have very relevant eolutionary triats: in social mammals, like dolphins and lions, same-sex behaviour helps reducing agression among males, while in birds like blak swans and seagulls, studies show that more chicks survive if raised by couples composed of the physically stronger sex (males in swans, females in seagulls). If this theory is correct, improved acceptance of gays and lesbians should eventually help mitigate the problem of overpopulation in crowded countries.

25th Nov '12 11:44:47 AM Peryton

Send Peryton a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 29,30 (click to see context) from:

to:

14th Aug '12 3:03:05 PM FELH2

Send FELH2 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 5,8 (click to see context) from:

Current statistics claim that about one person in ten is homosexual. This has contributed to the historical view that it is unusual at best, a serious deviation at worst. Until 1973, the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders]], basically the official textbook for abnormal psychology, listed homosexuality as a mental disorder [[hottip:* :Filed under DSM-II 302.0: "Sexual Orientation Disturbance (homosexuality)"]]. Just about the only term that has escaped the pejorative label is "Bi", as in "{{UsefulNotes/Bisexual}}," meaning "attracted to members of ''both'' sexes". This is partially because the term is relatively new, as is the idea that sexual orientation is a spectrum; and it's also because bi people are still willing to sleep with people of the opposite sex, which is a big point in its favor.

Since homosexuality is harmless as far as sexual abnormalities go, why is there so much hostility towards and/or disapproval of it? One interpretation has to do with conditions people have lived in through history. In the past, child mortality rates were horrific; an average of ''one child in two'' died before the age of five[[hottip:*:Today, it's one in twenty, and that's the the lowest it's ever been; just sixty years ago, it was ''three'' of twenty]]. DeathByChildbirth was also a major risk, which was even worse because it killed not only the mother, but every child she might have had thereafter. Long story short, you wanted every able-bodied male and female available to be involved in the process of continuing the species. Men and women not interested in reproducing (because they wanted to get busy with their own sex exclusively) added nothing to the process. It should be pointed out that in most cultures, however, having gay sex ''on the side'' was okay (in fact, sometimes man-on-man sex was considered a ''virtue''), or given a blind eye, as long as you were still pumping out babies.

to:

Current statistics claim that about one person in ten is homosexual. This has contributed to the historical view that it is unusual at best, a serious deviation at worst. Until 1973, the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders]], basically the official textbook for abnormal psychology, listed homosexuality as a mental disorder [[hottip:* :Filed under DSM-II 302.0: "Sexual Orientation Disturbance (homosexuality)"]]. Just about the only term that has escaped the pejorative label is "Bi", as in "UsefulNotes/{{Bisexual}}," meaning "attracted to members of ''both'' sexes". This is partially because the term is relatively new, as is the idea that sexual orientation is a spectrum; and it's also because bi people are still willing to sleep with people of the opposite sex, which is a big point in its favor.

Since homosexuality is harmless as far as sexual abnormalities go, why is there so much hostility towards and/or disapproval of it? One interpretation has to do with conditions people have lived in through history. In the past, child mortality rates were horrific; an average of ''one child in two'' died before the age of five[[note]]Today, it's one in twenty, and that's the the lowest it's ever been; just sixty years ago, it was ''three'' of twenty[[/note]]. DeathByChildbirth was also a major risk, which was even worse because it killed not only the mother, but every child she might have had thereafter. Long story short, you wanted every able-bodied male and female available to be involved in the process of continuing the species. Men and women not interested in reproducing (because they wanted to get busy with their own sex exclusively) added nothing to the process. It should be pointed out that in most cultures, however, having gay sex ''on the side'' was okay (in fact, sometimes man-on-man sex was considered a ''virtue''), or given a blind eye, as long as you were still pumping out babies.

Changed line(s) 15,16 (click to see context) from:

The term "homosexual," and indeed the entire idea of sexual orientation, is much NewerThanTheyThink. The first time "homosexual" appeared in print was 1869. Now, this is not to say that there have not been same-sex lovers since basically the beginning of time; in fact, as homosexual behavior is found in animals, it actually ''predates'' the human race. It's simply that, as explained earlier, humans placed a huge emphasis on making babies. As long as you were doing that, nobody cared what, or who, you did in your spare time, but it wasn't a ''lifestyle'' you could adopt, or identify with. You weren't gay; you weren't straight either. There ''was'' no category. As such, going to just about any historical figure and trying to describe them as gay or straight is inappropriate, since such social constructs didn't exist yet. Whether or not WilliamShakespeare liked boys, it's an absolute guarantee that he didn't ''think'' of himself as being gay. Like any good Englishman, he sired issue on his wife, regardless of what he would have liked to do if given the chance. Of course there ''were'' people who saw themselves as homosexual in the modern sense of the word, but they often received the same kind of ostracism that goes on today--even though most of them would have had to be rich, powerful, respected or priveleged just to ''get away'' with it. They were considered, well, deviants.

to:

The term "homosexual," and indeed the entire idea of sexual orientation, is much NewerThanTheyThink. The first time "homosexual" appeared in print was 1869. Now, this is not to say that there have not been same-sex lovers since basically the beginning of time; in fact, as homosexual behavior is found in animals, it actually ''predates'' the human race. It's simply that, as explained earlier, humans placed a huge emphasis on making babies. As long as you were doing that, nobody cared what, or who, you did in your spare time, but it wasn't a ''lifestyle'' you could adopt, or identify with. You weren't gay; you weren't straight either. There ''was'' no category. As such, going to just about any historical figure and trying to describe them as gay or straight is inappropriate, since such social constructs didn't exist yet. Whether or not Creator/WilliamShakespeare liked boys, it's an absolute guarantee that he didn't ''think'' of himself as being gay. Like any good Englishman, he sired issue on his wife, regardless of what he would have liked to do if given the chance. Of course there ''were'' people who saw themselves as homosexual in the modern sense of the word, but they often received the same kind of ostracism that goes on today--even though most of them would have had to be rich, powerful, respected or priveleged just to ''get away'' with it. They were considered, well, deviants.

7th Aug '12 10:42:40 AM Abodos

Send Abodos a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 35 (click to see context) from:

to:

This list shows the last 8 events of 8. Show all.

new edits

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy