6 reasons why we should support legalization of same-sex marriage.

Today, I really am going to bring light over a severe topic
which always got denied and neglected by the whole society from a long period
of time. The foreheads of the vast majority of religious, traditional,
fundamentalist, believers, moral brothers and sisters, in the society will be
frowned upon by this topic. It's nothing other than "Homosexuality".

Initially they start by asking interviewees that, what and is homosexuality
okay? The interviewees including students and teachers intellectually and
liberally support the act of same-sex relationships by adding points of it
being Genetic, Biological, Consensual and natural. As a cross argument, they
asked them -

If genetic was premise, what about serial killer genes (MaOA gene), being
natural was premise, what about rapes happens in dolphins and if being
consenting was premise, what about having consensual incest
relationships? 

Popular religious institutions like Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Judaism
unconditionally revoke the act of homosexuality by mentioning it as a sin and
unlawful in their scriptures. So as a strong believer and a modest person in
religion, you are forced to follow whatever testimonial rules it's scriptures
says. We are forced to believe that if you follow the rules you have a ticket
to heaven and else molten oil is waiting for you in the hell. So, what will
the a logical person do, he/she will never choose to be getting fried in hell,
they will choose to be a good person according to what religion said. This is
called popularly as social conditioning. So who made thinking a homosexual
like that, the same villain of their story - religion?

Islam - a report from Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace be upon him)
said: "If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did,
kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done" (38:4447).

The Hadith do unequivocally condemn male homosexual acts. The Qur’an (4:16)
demands
unspecified punishment for men guilty of lewdness
together unless they repent.

Bible -  Leviticus 20:13 (cf. 18:22) declares it abominable for a man
to lie with another man as with a woman, and
both partners are to be executed.
The possibility that one party has been coerced is not discussed: both are
defiled. However, the offence seems to be no worse than other capital crimes
mentioned in the same context, such as adultery and incest.

Paul evidently regarded the prohibition of sexual acts between men or
between women as violations of natural law
known even to non-Jews – at least if their minds were not clouded by
idolatry (Romans 1:18–32; 2:14–16). 

In current scenario, a minority with a different sexual orientation are
getting targeted in out society, discriminating them in the basis of how they
love and what they do in their bedroom. Society sees it as unnatural. Is it
really “unnatural”? Recently, I got to watch a video on social media by which
I felt extremely disgusted with. I don't want to describe the details of the
channel or the account, coz publicity which either negative or positive is
publicity. Their main agenda is to make videos and discussions criticizing
atheism, rationalism and liberal ideals "islamically". So, we are going to do
an analysis of it today.

Firstly, I should correct them not to address homosexuality, equality, liberty
etc. as a progressive ideology, coz it’s more likely humanitarian ideologies.
Those who believe in biblical, islamical or any other religious ideologies
would be feeling alienated hearing "humanitarian" in the first place. What
this people usually do is, make a comment addressing that there aren't ageist
homosexual individuals, they aren't targeting them, and they love and have a
lot of concern about the people who are going through it, cause they are
"sick" or "confused". But the irony really is that, they say they aren't
against those people but ironically they are disrespecting or debunking your
own statement or testimony by saying homosexuality is a wrong thing. How is
homosexuality and homosexuals different from each other? If you are against
homosexual activities then it makes you against homosexual people.
Homosexuality is unnatural, disease, mental illness, or contagious disease
neither. 

What is really wrong with Homosexuality?

I really don't know why this question still persists in 2022. A sexuality or
sexual orientation in which two consenting adults of same sex, love and make
love with each other in their own damn life. How is this even affecting
others? They are happy, their parents might have happy. Then what's the
problem with the society? Why do they still acknowledge it as a sin or an
unlawful thing? India decriminalized same-sex relationships in 2018. Still
society and these people with microphones have problem. Anyway this people
have raised some arguments. Let's analyze what really wrong with
homosexuality.

As expected, the interviewees got panic coz they weren’t that prepared as the
interviewers. Even though, the premises have nothing to do with or alike
homosexuality: the interviewees did try their best to reply them. Here,
interviewer used fallacies of unacceptable premises to confuse them in order
to attain what they really want in that tape, and they did have it as well.
Now, let me explain what they asked about.

Serial Killing and Homosexuality

MaOA gene, also known as
warrior or serial killer gene secretes an enzyme called monoamine oxidase A,
which objectively helps in production or metabolism of adrenaline, epinephrine
and norepinephrine (Fear and flight hormones) produced by adrenaline glands
above our kidneys  or it regulates the function of the neuro-transmitters
such as dopamine and serotonin or it breaks down neurotransmitters in the
synapse. So the job of the MAOA-gene is to send signals from the cell to
produce the MAOA enzyme. However, some humans have a low expression variant of
this gene, known as MAOA-L. These slight mutations in this gene or low
activity form (MAOA-L) can
cause heightened fear and fight responses, increased levels of aggression
and violence. 

This condition is inherited in an X-linked recessive pattern. The gene
associated with this condition is located on the X chromosome, which is one of
the two sex chromosomes. In males (who have only one X chromosome), one altered
copy of the gene in each cell is sufficient to cause the condition. To date,
there have been few association studies of the MAOA gene and personality traits,
with the results being largely inconsistent, likely due to small sample
sizes.
These studies also say that it is not compulsory that every serial killer
might have this mutation.

Even though the genetic studies and hypothesis conclusions of MaOA gene
mutation have similarities, but I dint get the logic of perusing it with
homosexuality and its genetics. Serial killing and Homosexuality is entirely
different from each other. When serial killing hurt people, homosexuality
doesn't even make a single scratch. it doesn't hurt people, but interviewers
homophobia hurt the worst. 

The interviewer better explain the logic of comparison between these two,
where homosexuality is entirely harmless in nature. It doesn't even bother
other people (not believers, they are definitely getting hurt).

This is the same situation with rape tendency or forced copulation in animals,
especially dolphins. We can’t really generalize everything, and also we don't
need to bring all into a dichotomic analysis. We have no opinion in
acknowledging everything naturally happens is a good thing, but believers have
no right to raise fingers against homosexuality since they don't question
heterosexuality.

Consensual Incest Relationships

Here it comes the second and mostly used logical fallacy:
slippery slope, where the
person use an argument depicts a course of action that seems to lead
inevitably from one action or result to another with unintended consequences.
He will not stop with incest; he will ask what next - necrophilia, pedophilia,
zoophilia etc. This is used to create a fear-scare mongering effect in people.

Anyway, when we talk about incest relationships; there is nothing "illegal" or
"Wrongfulness" in it as if
both partners are adults and consensual
(This is what our constitution and Indian Penal code says). Here, our morality
is the only thing which makes our brain thing like this, that's this, is a bad
thing I ever do. 

There is no wrongness in having sex in incest relationships, until them having
a baby.
Many studies say that, when the gametes of 2 individuals from same gene pool
get fertilized,
there is a higher chance of the zygote to inherit genetic diseases. So, now it
makes harm.

"Autosomal recessive disorders occur in individuals who have two copies of
an allele for a particular recessive genetic mutation. Except in certain
rare circumstances, such as new mutations or uniparental disomy, both
parents of an individual with such a disorder will be carriers of the gene.
These carriers do not display any signs of the mutation and may be unaware
that they carry the mutated gene. Since relatives share a higher proportion
of their genes than do unrelated people, it is more likely that related
parents will both be carriers of the same recessive allele, and therefore
their children are at a higher risk of inheriting an autosomal recessive
genetic disorder. The extent to which the risk increases depends on the
degree of genetic relationship between the parents; the risk is greater when
the parents are close relatives and lower for relationships between more
distant relatives, such as second cousins, though still greater than for the
general population.

Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at an increased
risk compared to cousin-cousin unions. 
Inbreeding may result in a greater than expected phenotypic expression of
deleterious recessive alleles within a population. As a result,
first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and
health defects, including:

• Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability


• Increased genetic disorders


• Fluctuating facial asymmetry


• Lower birth rate


• Higher infant mortality and child mortality


• Smaller adult size


• Loss of immune system function


• Increased cardiovascular risks

The isolation of a small population for a period of time can lead to
inbreeding within that population, resulting in increased genetic
relatedness between breeding individuals. Inbreeding depression can also
occur in a large population if individuals tend to mate with their
relatives, instead of mating randomly."

But, Homosexuals are there safe, coz they don't reproduce by a same sex
relationship or sexual intercourse. So, there is zero chance of getting a
baby.
So, as per the interviewer's weird logic, heterosexuality might have to get
banned or made unlawful then.

Is Homosexuality Unnatural?

Before we get into this, we need to understand what really meant by being
natural. If we take the term’s vocabulary aspects, we could find its meaning
as the things which exist in nature; not made or caused by human beings are
natural. Whereas, unnatural denote things which aren’t in accordance with
nature or consistent with a normal course of events. So the things or
behavioral aspects which seem common in nature are considered as natural and
others are not.

Here, most of the conservative ideologists argue constantly that homosexuality
is unnatural. But, is it really unnatural? No, I don’t think so. Cause, as we
discussed before, anything which is common in nature are considered to be
natural. It’s not just human where we can see homosexual behaviors, its common
in animals too. Scientists perceive homosexual behavior in animals to different
degrees. According to prominent biologists like
Bruce Bagemihl, same-sex behavior including comprising courtship, sexual,
pair-bonding and parental activities has been documented in over 450 species
in animal kingdom worldwide.
Although, same sex interactions involving genital contact have been reported in
hundreds of animal species, they are routinely manifested in only a few,
including humans. 

“References – [1] [2] [3]

So, how can something which is common in nature, which has been multiply
reported over 450+ species, be “unnatural”? If the things and behaviors which
exist in nature; not made or caused by human beings must be considered as
natural, then it do prove that homosexuality isn’t really “unnatural”. If
being not natural is the criteria to define what is unnatural, then you might
be wrong.

We never said, everything natural is a right thing. But, we can say it's wrong
neither. If you raise an argument like this, you must be rethinking about
"heterosexuality", coz it is also quite "common" in nature. As we all know,
it’s the main reason which populate and nurture such organizations and
socio-religious institutions which are against homosexuality, they won’t be
talking about that.

But, there are many things which really fit into “unnatural” category – like,
circumcision of foreskin, Masturbation, Believing in God, et cetera. But they
won’t be talking about that. Coz, why the hell will they be hurting themselves,
right?

So, this is all propaganda against entire LGBTQIA Community, we can assume,
how really the religion and its institutions are getting affected by the
promotion and acceptation of the queer individuals. If we do so, the religion
will lose its absurd morality and dignity. Their arbitrary objective morality
and its weird discriminatory and fascistic ideologies and believes will get
washed away and eventually result in the decline of the total active members
in such regressive religions and believes. So, what we want to understand is,
discuss these things with your families and friends. Re-educate people who
have zero knowledge of what’s happening around them should be our primary
motive.

Homosexuality is a mental illness?

No. Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) beginning with the first edition,
published in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and
International Classification of Diseases (ICD) by WHO. This classification was
challenged by gay rights activists in the years following the 1969 Stonewall
riots, and in December 1973, the APA board of trustees voted to declassify
homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1974 the DSM was updated and
homosexuality was replaced with a new diagnostic code for individuals distressed
by their homosexuality. Distress over one's sexual orientation remained in the
manual, under different names, until the DSM-5 in 2013.

APA no longer sees homosexuality as mental disorder.
This is what APA says about homosexuality as a mental disorder in their
official website.

“No. lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has
found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and
psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal
aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different
cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that
portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of
research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental
health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations
represent normal forms of human experience.” [4]

But, they do raise an argument crossing the depathologization of homosexuality
from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) in
1973, with the help of an article published by NCBI [5].

They Cherry picked a statement from the article, says:

“Psychiatrists from the psychoanalytic community, however, objected to the
decision. They petitioned APA to hold a referendum asking the entire
membership to vote either in support of or against the BOT decision. The
decision to remove was upheld by a 58% majority of 10,000 voting members. It
should be noted that psychiatrists did not vote, as is often reported in the
popular press, on whether homosexuality should remain a diagnosis. What APA
members voted on was to either “favor” or “oppose” the APA Board of Trustees
decision and, by extension, the scientific process they had set up to make the
determination [6]," 

There is also a quoting where the article says : 

“Gay Activists, revolts and Stone wall riot in 1969 [7] acted as a catalyst in
depathologising homosexuality from the second edition".

Here, what we have to understand is APA or WHO didn't completely
depathologised homosexuality in the second edition after the voting session
held in 1973. They replaced it with a new term as "Sexual Orientation
Disturbance". This represented a compromise between the view that preferential
homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a
normal sexual variant.

The new diagnosis legitimized the practice of sexual conversion
therapies (and presumably justified insurance reimbursement for those
interventions as well), even if homosexuality per se was no longer considered
an illness. The new diagnosis also allowed for the unlikely possibility that a
person unhappy about a heterosexual orientation could seek treatment to become
gay [8].

SOD was later replaced in DSM-III by a new category called “Ego Dystonic
Homosexuality” (EDH). However, it was obvious to psychiatrists more than a
decade later that the inclusion first of SOD, and later EDH, was the result of
earlier political compromises and that neither diagnosis met the definition of a
disorder in the new nosology. Otherwise, all kinds of identity disturbances
could be considered psychiatric disorders. “Should people of color unhappy about
their race be considered mentally ill?” critics asked. What about short people
unhappy about their height? Why not ego-dystonic masturbation?[9]  As a
result, ego-dystonic homosexuality was removed from the next revision,
DSM-III-R, in 1987. At last, APA implicitly accepted a normal variant view of
homosexuality in a way that had not been possible fourteen years earlier.

The interviewers of the video also cross our arguments with "science cannot be
decided by a vote". But they actually intentionally neglect to mention that
those favoring retention of the diagnosis were the ones who petitioned for a
vote in the first place. Even after we consider that, This is the not only one
instance where science decided by vote, we can see a similar approach from an
event in 2006, when the International Astronomical Union voted on whether
Pluto was a planet, demonstrating that even in a hard science like astronomy,
interpretation of facts are always filtered through human subjectivity.

Now about Activism, What is really that wrong with it? The early assumptions
of science on homosexuality were wrong. The society was stigmatized in such an
extent that a single person couldn't think from another perspective. Biblical
and Islamical ideologies see it as a sin against nature and a wrong thing. So
science simply made a conclusion on that. But today's different studies and
researches say that genetical, biological and environmental factors have a
complex role in human sexual orientation. How can someone theorize that
something uncommon and sees only in a minority is just abnormal and should be
treated? 

How come activism and protests considered as a bad thing, It always brought
bright future as we experience. If Narayana Gurudeva, Ayyankali, Vivekanda,
Rajaram Mohan Roy had not protested against bigotry, Neither lower castes had
not been given the opportunity to study in schools and pray in temples, nor
sati would not have abolished. If women activism wasn't there, whatever a
woman experience today would not be there. If the farmers had not protested
against the farmer laws, the government would not have repealed it. Moreover,
without our freedom struggle, India would not have gained independence. 

What do you think; whatever happened in "shaheen bagh" was also a bad thing?

Is Homosexuals a vector of STDs?

Definitely not. Here interviewer makes an argument quoting a report from World
Health Organization (WHO) and Center of Disease Control (CDC) which says
homosexual man have 17x more chance of getting STDs than heterosexuals. [10]
Here we need to understand what really meant by STDs, 

Actually its not STDs (Sexually Transmitting Diseases) : its STIs - Sexually
Transmitted Infections. Actually,
it's the individual sex practices causes these infections,
if it is a healthy one, there is less chance to get STIs. If not, you are a
dead man. Is there any studies saying homosexuals inherit STIs? No, it's just
the individual sex practices which are irrespective of gender causes STIs, not
homosexuality. It's sexually transmitted infections, not like others and you
know that. If a homosexual guy has STI, it won't spread to a heterosexual guy.
If you are using the surveys and studies of WHO or CDC to prove your point,
why are you using some other citing to prove the futility of the protection
methods in homosexual intercourses? Why are you not citing the links of the
studies in the description, we all like to read it fully? Don't you still
think it’s time to stop the activity of gulping in half of the truth, and
presenting it? Now, let’s go through some more statistics, by WHO you forgot
to mention;

WHO Says these:

• 
  HPV infection is associated with 570 000 cases of cervical cancer in 2018,
  and over 311 000 cervical cancer deaths each year
  


• 
  Almost 1 million pregnant women were estimated to be infected with syphilis
  in 2016, resulting in over 350 000 adverse birth outcomes including 200 000
  stillbirths and newborn deaths
  


• 
  STIs such as Gonorrhea and Chlamydia are major causes of pelvic inflammatory
  disease (PID) and infertility in women.
  


• Many sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) spread through oral sex.


• 
  More than 85% of sexually active adults aged 18-44 years reported having
  oral sex at least once with a partner of the opposite sex. A separate survey
  conducted during 2011 to 2015 found that 41% of teenagers aged 15-19 years
  reported having oral sex with a partner of the opposite sex.
  


• 
  Few studies look at the risks of getting STDs, other than HIV, from giving
  oral sex on the vagina or anus, compared to the penis.
  


• 
  If you’re touching your partner’s genitals, or they are touching yours, then
  there is a risk of transmitting some STIs.
  

Here, the interviewer barely acknowledge the fact that, 17x more chance in
homosexuals doesn't make the risk lesser in heterosexuals being caught by
STIs. It’s just 17x lesser than to that of homosexuals. But they're not even
saying a single word against heterosexuality, monogamy, multiple sexual
partnerships, anal, oral and vaginal sex in heterosexuals, as their religion
permit more than 4 wives. So, It clearly shows their biased reporting of a
social issue, coz because, their intentions are not to educate or spread
awareness about the STIs, it's just the production of hate and fear against
homosexuality.

As they are showing the statistics of STIs in homosexuals, they also have a
humanitarian responsibility to check or try to understand what really is
responsible for this "17x" increase in homosexuals. There is something they
barely acknowledged, In official website of Center of Disease Control (CDC),
It explains hardly what really causes this higher number of chances of getting
STIs, in homosexuals. Why do they show reluctance for protection, treatments
and talk? It’s better if you read it thoroughly, coz you are responsible for
it.

CDC says this [10]: 

"Other factors that can negatively impact your health and ability to receive
appropriate care: 

• Homophobia;  


• Stigma (negative and usually unfair beliefs);


• 
  Discrimination (unfairly treating a person or group of people
  differently);
  


• 
  Lack of access to culturally- and orientation-appropriate medical and
  support services;
  


• Heightened concerns about confidentiality;


• Fear of losing your job;


• Fear of talking about your sexual practices or orientation." 

These reasons and others may prevent you from seeking testing, prevention
and treatment services, and support from friends and family."

So, the one and only responsible guy for this 17x increase in homosexuals are
people like them. They are the main source of Homophobia, Stigma etc. against
homosexuals.

They also didn't cite this report as well. If there was an institutional
method of living a healthy sex life for homosexual men and women in our damn
society as heterosexuals have, these higher number of chances of getting STIs
would have gone down to the same level of heterosexual men and women. But we
are believers, we will blame homosexuals for doing unhealthy sex, but we won't
ask ourselves that why do they do sex in a unhealthy way. 

The one and only solution for this is to say goodbye to taboos and sigma and
embrace homosexual people with heartfelt of love and give them a chance for
institutional or systematic healthy sex life in this society. If you do so,
they will become educated, and don't even have to hide their sexuality from
others too. If you do so, you can't trace this "17 times" or "30 times" extra
chance in this situation.

Yes, STIs are definitely a big concern, but if we take specific precautions,
they can be prevented irrespective to gender. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)
is a biomedical prevention strategy that aims to prevent human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition by prescribing a once-daily
antiretroviral pill to persons with possible high-risk behaviors, such as
condom less sexual intercourse, especially in men who have sex with men (MSM).
Do PrEP if you wanted, use contraception like, condoms, dental dams, etc,
sexually educate yourself  and built an identity of yourself. Do not
hesitate to talk to your partner about sex. Take vaccines for HPV, hepatitis
A, and hepatitis B.

Conclusion

I believe not you dispute in understanding between whom a marriage takes
place, who should live it for the rest of their lives, and whose happiness is
greater in that? Have you ever wondered how tragic and traumatic it can be to
impose conventional gender roles in society on a homosexual, to deny their
identity, sexual freedom, and happiness, and to tell them to live a sex-family
life that they do not like, comfortable or flexible for the rest of their
lives? It's the same way how a homosexual individual feels like when a
heterosexual individual gives up their own interests, preferences, liberties,
and dreams just for their parents selfish obstinacy and marry a person who
they barely know and live with them forever.

My opinion is crystal clear that, this is not one's choice or freedom. Because
as per today's scientific understanding, it is caused by a complex interplay
of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences and cannot view it as a
choice. I do agree that there is no single gene which effect homosexuality in
humans, but the same study says that - 

"Human sexual orientation is complex to understand, there might not be a
single gene, instead there might be multiple or overlapping genes responsible
for this complex nature of humans." 

Although, science have limited sources of materials, samples that's the main
reason of this conclusion. This is what many of genome projects, and
epigenetic studies says about homosexuality. There is also major difference in
brain anatomy. Current studies can't get a crystal clear conclusion, coz it's
complex to understand. Then, on what basis do you define the argument that
only this man and woman are perfect and everything else is imperfect? Now if
reproduction is the basis of it, is it possible for gay couples to do it?
There are a number of methods, including artificial insemination, IVF, and
surrogacy. 

Now, are you arguing that biologically infertile couples are imperfect? If so,
that's you being ill hearted and inhuman. If that isn't enough and if
reproduction solely is the basis of it, then all the monks, celibates,
priests, nuns, popes, etc. around the world should also be questioned. If that
were not enough, would not adoption be the lifeblood of 153 million orphans
around the world right now? (I think I should not break down the cliché
arguments that gay parents raise gay kids, gay parents kids can have mental
illnesses like depression, suicide tenancy etc., there are unknown studies
debunking those myths, just search it on google).

Who told  that homosexuality can be cured or fixed by hormone
injections and therapy? Conclusion of major studies on this are these, as
shown below:

• 
  The definition of same sex attraction as an illness and the development
  of treatments to eradicate such attraction have had a negative long term
  impact on individuals.
  


• 
  Effect of any steroids or hormonal interventions after prenatal
  embryonic development is not effective in human. (I have read it some
  where, i don't remember the source)
  


• 
  The so called cure - "conversation therapy" is unethical, and not
  supported by science. Coz there is zero proof and evidence backing it
  up. And a report says that, 8 times of individuals undergone
  conversation therapy have attempted suicide, 6 times shown clinical
  depression etc. (Google ot for full details)
  


• 
  Watch "Pray Away" documentary in Netflix, if you are thinking about
  ex-gays.
  

There are more studies, that's all I have now. 

We can identify what is right and wrong through the evolved morality.
Morality must not be a criteria of categorizing things into right and
wrong. Prejudicing and discriminating people in the basis of race, color,
gender, social status, religion, etc is a wrong thing. I really don't
thing I should have lecture you on it. Let the studies, human
subjectivity, humanity and the constitution decide what is good or bad.
You can definitely criticize it too, but without offending them.

You may also have to define the criteria of categorizing things as right
and wrong. Mine is our constitution, humanity and human subjectivity.
Still you cant accept them and how they are, just try to stay away from
them for the god sake. It will help them more than it's supposed to be.

References, fact sheets and papers