Well, I don’t need to. Lesbian encounters are safer than heterosexual encounters because encounters with males is dangerous, period. Males transmit STDs far more easily than females. It’s encounters with males that’s the issue.

Secondly, I’ll note that Jewish-Christian marriages also divorce at about a 40% rate, but we don’t assume interfaith marriage is a mental illness nor do we ban interfaith marriage.

Correlation is not causation. Can you think of any social factors that could contribute to the numbers you cite?

Here is your fallacy: You choose one and only one ill and herald a false victory. I pointed out an equally insidious ill, instability in the relationship between lesbians, and you conveniently ignored that. And, as you yourself state, I gave a host of other serious conflicts that befall those in same-sex unions. These, too, you ignored.

When you see the extensive literature on the prevalence of medical and psychiatric disorders within the homosexual community (that is not presented to youth), this cannot be ignored, despite your apparent attempt to do so by trotting out your fallacy.

I hope this exchange between us is sufficient to make thinking readers pause before assenting to radically alter the definition of marriage and thereby hurting the world’s children.

I have found over the years that activists for same-sex unions will rarely engage in rational scientific debate but instead insist on throwing out irrationalities, as Ray are doing here. Hopefully, Ray can move to engage in intellectual debate with honest reasoning and not hype.

I mean, this would imply that a girl would have a significantly greater chance of being struck by lightning than contracting HIV (or most other STDs) from sex with another girl.

Can you answer the question I asked? It seems amenable to a “yes” or “no” answer. (I’m fine with a “Yes, but…” or “No, but…” as well.)

Let me quote first from the abstract -

“Among men, we found significant differences in cancer prevalence, with gay men having 1.9 the odds of reporting a cancer diagnosis compared with heterosexual men.”

CONCLUSIONS: “…whereas healthcare providers and public health agencies need to be made aware of the higher prevalence of cancer in gay men to prevent future cancers through increased screening and primary prevention.” Cancer 2011;117:3796–804. VC 2011 American Cancer Society.

Now let me quote from the article itself -

“For male cancer survivors, we found gay men to have a significantly younger age of diagnosis (mean age, 41 years) compared with other sexual orientation groups. The amount of time men were living with cancer did not differ significantly by sexual orientation, on average 8 years.” p. 3798

The provision of informed consent to youth in regard to homosexuality should include the fluidity of attraction in youth and adults, abuse victimization. the serious risks of HIV in males and of psychiatric illnesses.

Dr. Laumann’s research at the University of Chicago has shown that “sexual orientation has found to be unstable over time in both males and females.” In another study Kinnish demonstrated that sexual attraction/orientation is inherently flexible, evolving continuously over the life span and that women demonstrate greater fluidity than men.

In a 2010 report, the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, 40 percent of the couples who had conceived a child by artificial insemination had broken up. Lisa Diamond reported in her book, Sexual Fluidity, that “more than two-thirds of the women in my sample had changed their identity labels at least once after the first interview. The women who kept the same identity for the whole ten years proved to be the smallest and most atypical group.”

A 2002 study a lifetime abuse victimization revealed that 7% of heterosexual males reported being abused whereas 39% of males with SSA reported being abused by other males with SSA. Other research on homosexual relationships among demonstrates similar findings.

GLB youth who self-identified during high school report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risks and problem behaviors , including suicide sexual risk behaviors, multiple substance abuse use, victimization. In addition these youth are more likely to report engaging in multiple risk behaviors and initiating risk behaviors at an earlier age than their peers.

Young men who have sex with men (MSM) are at extremely high risk for contracting a sexually transmitted infection. According to the CDC , the number of MSMs ages 13 to 24 with newly diagnosed HIV is increasing each year and almost doubled since 2000. The number infected increased by 11% in 2001 and by 18% in 2006.

A 2008 study found the HIV new-infection rate in the US 40% higher than estimated. Boys who begin to engage in sexual activity with males at an early age are more likely to become HIV positive or contract an STD. Intensive condom education has failed to prevent infections. According to Dr. Philip Alcabes, an epidemiologist at Hunter College, “It looks like prevention campaigns make even less difference than anyone thought.”

A study of young men aged 17–22 who have sex with men found that 22% reported beginning sex with men when aged 3 to 14; of these, 15.2% were HIV positive. Of those who began sex when they were 15 to 19, 11.6% were HIV positive. While of those who began sex with men when they were 20 to 22, only 3.8% were HIV positive. It is clear that every year that a male with SSA delays sexual involvement reduces his risk of HIV.

In a study of 137 young males with SSA aged 17 to 21, 30% admitted to at least one suicide attempt. Forty-four percent attributed this attempt to family problems including marital discord, divorce and alcoholism. Other factors included a history of sexual abuse in 61%, substance abuse in 85%, illegal activities in 51%, effeminacy in 36%, and prostitution in 29%.

The data on the 10,587 youths from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health revealed that 1% reported same-sex attraction only, whereas 5% reported attraction to both sexes. Those with SSA were twice as likely to perpetrate violence and also at greater risk for experiencing and witnessing violence.

Research has shown that in youth suicide risk decreases by delaying self-identifying as a homosexual. One study demonstrated that suicide risk among youth with same-sex attractions decreases 20 percent each year they delay labeling themselves as gay.

References can be found from the link in my previous comment.

Let us not deny the reality here. There is a systematic effort to suppress the truth. I understand that such suppression comes from two kinds of motivation: misplaced compassion and a lack of courage. It is the uniformed adolescents who suffer because of this. It is time to face the reality of the above scientific findings and to protect our children.

As I said in another thread, it is pointless to continue discussing this issue with you because you have no theory of psychosexual development to point to. It is impossible to verify anything you say, because you give no references. I hope people understand that what you are saying here is based on no science or observation, but simply your own opinion. Even what I have read of Freudians (who tend to be more likely than others in the mental health field to consider homosexuality a disorder) goes contrary to much of what you say, and so does what I have read of the people who believe in “reparative therapy.” You can change my mind by mentioning two or three reference on the topic that would help me understand your views. But as it stands, your writings on the topic remind me of “authorities” before Galileo who felt no need to drop balls of different weights to see if the heavier drops faster than the lighter. It was just “common sense” that it did.

==============

Certainly environment and experience are the two major components that propel an individual to develop disoriented or dysfunctional sexualities, like homosexuality/bisexuality, pedophilia, promiscuity, etc. Children are profoundly affected (both consciously and unconsciously) throughout the many years they spend at school.

An individual’s environment usually comprises at least a few major components, of which school is one of the most powerful ones. Children spend a great deal of their time being socialized, conditioned, taught, and modeled in schools. Sometimes they are also traumatized. Attitudes about sexuality and relationships are developed, reinforced, curbed, or eliminated in schools. The same for ideologies, including sexuality ones. Thus schools can have a profound impact in propelling kids to develop or enhance dysfunctional psychologies, including those related to homosexuality/bisexuality.

The question is that for a person to develop homosexuality dynamics, one causational or contributing factor alone is not enough.

Given that an ensemble of environmental/experiential factors are necessary, it doesn’t make sense to state that none of them contribute to the development of a homosexuality problem for a particular individual, because none of them alone will produce such a result. They all do, but it’s the sum of the parts that will determine the result.