//
you're reading...
Uncategorized

7 Scientific Facts about homosexuality and its adverse effects on society

AWARE’s programmes in schools suspended by MOE after it was found to convey messages which could promote homosexuality. More stimulus on our youths can be expected once homosexuality is decriminalized.

1.   Despite the fact that the heterosexual community is at least 20 times larger in numbers than the gay community, in 2011, Singapore’s health ministry reveals that the number of homosexual and bisexual men diagnosed with HIV, overtakes that of heterosexual men. (Source: http://www.nuh.com.sg/news/media-articles_2319.html)

2.  A research that focused on countries with long history of gay marriage i.e. Denmark and Norway, showed that married gays and lesbians have a shorter lifespan than their conventionally married counterparts – by 24 years! (Source: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/apr/07040309) Further comment: Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?

3.   A study on childhood and adolescent molestation also found rates of homosexual sexual abuse reported by homosexual adults to be almost 7 times higher for homosexual men, and 22 times higher for homosexual women, compared to their heterosexual counterparts. This strongly suggests that minors can be sexualised towards homosexuality upon exposure to homosexual stimulus or homosexual abuse. (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300) Further comment: Statistics like this affirmatively calls for the law to protect our minors from homosexual stimulus or abuse. This strongly supports the cause for the law to continue to draw a distinction between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex.

4. Latest research shows that children raised by homosexual parents experience more problems than children raised by married heterosexual parents. (You may refer to my previous post on “Research shows children raised by homosexual parents have more problems than those raised by married heterosexual parents”)

5. In his book, Born Gay? Dr John Tay, clinical geneticist and former Head of the Division of Human Genetics in NUS, talks about the contrast in opinion between public and the scientific community, on whether gays are born this way. He noted how public’s popular belief stems from the media play up of early scientific studies in the 1990s on brain structures, twin studies and the Xq28 gene. These studies have in fact been heavily criticized by fellow professionals to be flawed and biased. It must be noted too that other than the media headlines, the very same researchers of these studies have themselves confessed that they have not found anything genetic that is deterministic of the homosexual orientation.

Dr John gave insight to the question of whether gays are born that way and they cannot change by explaining what genes really do to us:

“The effects of genes on behaviour are very indirect because genes make proteins, not preferences. The scientific truth is that our genes do not force us into anything. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. The startling conclusion is that genetic factors are much less important than environmental ones in the causation of homosexuals. On this basis, the claim by homosexuals that ‘I am born that way, so I cannot change’ is simply not true.”

6. Homosexual sex is often associated with dangerous behaviour, which includes the use of illegal and deadly drugs. Businesses facilitating gays to meet up in groups for sex and orgies with strangers sprout illegally, functioning as spas and clubs. Such dangerous behaviour probably explains my point 1, and more alarmingly, it has been reported that minors, as young as age 15, 16, are getting increasingly involved – experimenting with gay sex. These are most troubling trends. Homosexual feelings can be fluid especially at young age but a minor would likely be imprinted with gender identity struggles leading to a homosexual orientation once he experiments with homosexual sex. While we understand individuals have preferences and it is also their private choice what they would do as adults with regards to their sexual behaviour, we must not overlook the rights of the rest of the public, especially our children.
(Source: http://news.asiaone.com/News/The+New+Paper/Story/A1Story20091108-178561.html; http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drug-use-seven-times-higher-among-gays-8165971.html#)

7.   Finally, the hard truth is, homosexuality cannot lay claim to its biological purpose, i.e. procreation, the way heterosexuality can. It’s biological origin and hence, rights, is also unproven (point 5). In this, heterosexuality has a legitimacy which homosexuality cannot lay claim to, and the law is obliged to distinguish this fundamental difference. Otherwise, the unproven rights of a group will be pushed at the expense of proven rights of the other group. This includes the rights of our children, which will be compromised.

Discussion

8 thoughts on “7 Scientific Facts about homosexuality and its adverse effects on society

  1. qq

    Posted by k | January 10, 2013, 8:14 am
  2. point 7 – heterosexuality don’t copulate to procreate most of the time

    Posted by k | January 10, 2013, 8:16 am
  3. Scientific facts also show that Jesus was molested by a gay so that is why he hated gays.

    Posted by Alan | January 10, 2013, 11:38 am
  4. So if some research shows your live an extra 24 years (on average) for marrying someone of the same sex, are you going to run off to do that?

    Posted by Z | January 11, 2013, 8:53 am
  5. Smoking on average causes life expectancy to decrease by 7 years. Where’s the rationale then, if we as a society frowns on smoking but promotes homosexuality.

    Let’s talk sense. I believe we have intellect and can be objective. No need to put down any religious groups. There’s nothing religious I have written, in fact.

    Posted by concernedsgcitizen | January 11, 2013, 10:12 am
  6. Sorry. Your point number 4 has been debunk and the studies methodology found to be fruad.

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255

    Posted by Myth debunk | January 12, 2013, 4:24 pm
    • Sherkat discredited the definition of lesbians mothers and gay fathers. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child. Is that not correct? But Sherkat’s point exclaims, “because your survey never ask how long they were in this relationship, it is completely defunct!”

      In fact, mathematically, there can never be a 100% accurate survey. Should we make defunct all scientific studies and surveys henceforth?

      Regnerus’s work consists of a good amount of objectivity, accuracy, effort, and should not have been unfairly discredited by Sherkat. It should have been recognized and used as a framework for more studies that detail into the problems of parenting by gays and lesbians.

      The rest of my comments are written in detail in the post on Regnerus study on homosexual parents. Thanks.

      Posted by concernedsgcitizen | January 13, 2013, 10:05 am

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Daily SG: 10 Jan 2013 | The Singapore Daily - January 10, 2013

%d bloggers like this: