Sunday, August 10, 2014

Australia:  School chaplain sacked over Facebook post calling homosexuality 'not normal'

He's perfectly right.  Homosexuality is statistically not normal.  Only about 2% of the population are queer

A Hobart school chaplain has been sacked for re-posting a comment on Facebook that described homosexuality as "not normal".

Troy Williams was employed by the Scripture Union, Tasmania's main provider of school chaplaincy services which appoints and trains state and private school chaplains.

Mr Williams was stood down from his role at the Hobart College over the post, which also makes the claim that "no-one is born gay".

Mr Williams issued an apology after his Facebook post drew widespread condemnation earlier this month.



Anonymous said...

"Normal" can be applied in many ways. As a percentage of the population, many human characteristics may fall under 50% of the total population under consideration. White people aren't normal either in respect of the world population.
An unqualified person such as this religious bigot making the claim that homosexuality isn't inborn is almost meaningless, as virtually all human characteristics and behavior have a genetic element to them.

Anonymous said...

As for the 2% estimate given here, along with the pejorative term "queer" as used here, it is the lowest and most negatively biased percentage usually quoted. The highest is about 10% of the general population everywhere, to take into account the huge number of "closet" and undocumented cases, indetermimate cases and openly or not-so openly bisexual cases.
But of course, the percentage of "supporters" in any issue or case does not validate or invalidate a position.

Anonymous said...

More like it's just a spectrum of sexual attraction from a tiny extreme at one end who are honestly only ever 100% heterosexual and a corresponding 100% at the other end as homosexual - with everyone else either honestly or dishonestly claiming to be somewhere along this very long and various continuum.

stinky said...

In evolution, propagation is the single most normal characteristic in all species, by definition.

Failure to do so is not normal, it means something has gone awry, likely in the womb, early in the pregnancy.

[BTW, I didn't know before that our resident troll was gay, but now I do.]

Anonymous said...

So Stinky thinks you can't discuss a demographic without being a member of it. Is that why Stinky talks so much about trolls, because he is one?
He also doesn't know much about populations and genetics, if he thinks it's advantageous for every individual in a population or social community to propogate.
Stinky is just ignorant.

Anonymous said...

please excuse typo - that is "propagate" of course.

Anonymous said...

It's ok not to propagate if you're a drone bee, but if you've got the equipment and don't use it, then genetically you're abnormal.

And if you do try to use it but fail, then you're just a loser, but that's evolution.

Anonymous said...

How did the progressives become so enamored of homosexuals ?

Anonymous said...

Well, even homosexuals can, and do, propagate or procreate, and more usually lesbians; but not of course together with persons of the same sex, but if they can and do spread their genes, perhaps they are also at the same time spreading "homo" genetic pre-disposition in the process. (Oh wow!).
So ironically, the homophobes are being counter-productive to try to force or induce gay men and women (as they have been doing so much in the past) to behave and reproduce heterosexually.
Dumb heteroes!!

Stan B said...

"Nature" vs "Nurture" is the ongoing discussion which seems to be taboo among homosexual conversations.


If it's nature, it can be "fixed" with gene therapy, once we isolate the genetic factors involved.

If it's nurture, we can derive plans and therapies to prevent it.

So which is it? Not allowed to ask, because in either case, you're saying it's "not normal."

Anonymous said...

No Stan, we're saying you're promoting fascist eugenics, just like those N-word people of germanic notoriety (but also fashionable in many countries in the 1920s and 1930s, not least the US).

stinky said...

If I had to hypothesize, it wo ld appear to be the side effect of a nutritional defociency in the mother during pregnancy, perhaps spearheaded by lower levels of zinc.

But I highly doubt there's any sort of a gay gene. Such a gene would have been winnowed long ago.

Whatever it is, it will be well understood soon enough and parents can decide for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Stinky again shows his ignorance. There obviously isn't any sort of gay gene. It would be a combination of genes or genetic interplay that predisposes a person to be homosexual more than heterosexual; and not necessarily the same interplay that produces characteristics more like the behavior or psychology that's typical of the opposite sex.
It's clearly difficult or impossible to interfere with such genetic interplay without risking a worse outcome, and it may just be a side-effect of another very important genetic function, and the reason why it persists through the generations rather than dying out.

stinky said...

It persists as a side effect that would be more expensive to eliminate than to ignore. I doubt that our hunter-gatherer ancestors had as much homosexuality - yes, much less even than the current <2% figure - as we do today, given that their diet would have been healthier.

The advent of agriculture, around the globe, consistently caused a 6 inch loss of height, bad teeth, smaller brains, deformed bones etc. We ate grass (seeds) only because we had increased population beyond what hunting/gathering would suppport.

There was no gene for a 6 inch loss of height, for bad teeth, for smaller brains. And there is likely no gay gene either.

Once the environmental - prob nutritional - causes of homosexuality are known, parents can decide for themselves what to do.

A mother's first son is much less likely to be gay than her later sons. That's not genes; that's weakness in the womb, prob cuz poor nutrition prevented the mother from replacing her depleted resources.

Bird of Paradise said...

Look what happens to a nation when liberals take over