[Genecks]

Long ago, the APA considered homosexuality a mental illness. Many people throughout the past decades considered that idea silly, and it was thrown out as a mental illness. I thought it was silly when I learned about it. However, in my studies of psychology, biology, and neuroscience, I've considered that homosexuality may indeed be a mental illness in a sense...

But take its possibility into consideration. Take it with seriousness.

What does it mean to have a mental illness?
Is it better defined as a mental abnormality?

Well, I'd like to consider the sex drive in reference to its design. In its design, it can serve in the function of reproduction. As such, homosexuals, living truly as homosexuals with no intention of reproducing with a female, are not living out their biological function. And their refusal/inability/non-desire to carry out their biological function goes against neurobiological programming in reference to reproduction...

So, in that sense, I could say it's a mental illness.
It seems absolutely reasonable to me.

Perhaps it's not a mental illness in the same way schizophrenia is a mental illness, but it's some an inability to assimilate according to typical biological function.

I don't truly believe evolution provided persons with a gene to be homosexual. I think that knock-out function of a gene could cause people to behave abnormally, thus homosexual. But I don't think nature provided people with a functional gay gene, as that would work against concepts of reproduction in order to sustain life. Evolution can act to increase fitness. As such, genes that come into existence would more than likely exist to sustain/increase fitness.

This post has been edited by Genecks: 5 May 2010 - 12:49 AM

[iNow]

Genecks said:

Is homosexuality a mental illness?

No

Genecks said:

I don't truly believe evolution provided persons with a gene to be homosexual.

Well, no offense mate, but reality doesn't give a frak what you believe. There are numerous mechanisms by which evolution could (and likely did) select for homosexuality.



http://discovermagaz...start:int=0&-C=

Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.

<...>

Bocklandt is quick to point out that most likely there is no single “gay gene”—no single switch for sexual orientation. Instead, there are probably a handful of genes that work in ways as yet unexplained.

<...>

He thinks it is likely that perhaps 5 to 15 genes explain sexual orientation in most people.

I have numerous others from my numerous other debates on this topic if you'd like them. I can share information on biological source, on how psychotherapy is ineffective, and a few others. The above is just a quick, easy summary.

Quote

As for persistence evolutionarily, there is the aforementioned issue of kin selection, whereby homoesexuality offers reproductive advantage in terms of caring for kin (much like the grandmother hypothesis). There is also the issue of human sexuality falling along a spectrum, as opposed to being divided into boolean "either/or" states. In some cases, the sex drive itself was selected for, not so much the mating partners genitals. Having a stronger sex drive or desire for sex is a more successful approach to spreading your genes into the future than merely selecting for attraction to opposite sex partners alone. The drive for sex itself is what gets selected, not the drive for opposite sex partners, and that selection of drive/desire somtimes results in a preference for same sex parnters.

Additionally, you have social hierarchy issues, whereby sex can be used to calm tensions and assuage group alphas. It's about dominance and submissiveness. We are, at our core, animals which exist in troops, and often tensions can cause members of that troop to be ostracized or killed. It may sound silly to some, but in these circumstances among angry primates sex can be used to save lives, remain a member of the pack, and ensure availability of resources and group protection... hence, same sex activity would be selected for (even though offspring are not created with same sex partners). Those who were unwilling to engage in same sex relations would have more often been killed or ostracized from the group, and hence reproduced less than those who were okay with same sex activities such as petting or rubbing or intercourse.

In a similar manner, sex can be used to barter... a form of trade... where you gain favors by having sex wtih others (as in bonobo monkey tribes). Basically, sex can be used as currency, and this currency can be spent beyond just opposite sex partners... and beyond the mere act of mating. Quid pro quo in its most basic form.

Evolutionarily, there are a great number of reasons that homosexuality is selected for. Above, I've named but a few.

My preference lies with the idea that sex itself is what was selected for, not necessarily sex with opposite gendered partners.

[pink_trike]

http://www.sciencefo...62&postcount=55

[StringJunky]

iNow said:

My preference lies with the idea that sex itself is what was selected for, not necessarily sex with opposite gendered partners.

How do you explain the fact that 90-95% of the population is hetero', if it's just sex that's selected for and not bias? If it was just sex that was selected for wouldn't it be reasonable to see a more even distribution of the two biases in a population....bias in the sense of hetero' or homo' behaviour?

I think some people are genetically hardwired to be gay and I don't think it's a pathalogical behaviour or mental illness...for the record.

This post has been edited by StringJunky: 5 May 2010 - 10:27 AM

[iNow]

That's a fair point. Heterosexual activity obviously has a reproductive advantage over homosexual activity. I'll need to think on that some. For the time being, I'll choose to prefer one of the other three or four reasons it could evolve shared above. ;)

[ecoli]

StringJunky said:

How do you explain the fact that 90-95% of the population is hetero', if it's just sex that's selected for and not bias? If it was just sex that was selected for wouldn't it be reasonable to see a more even distribution of the two biases in a population....bias in the sense of hetero' or homo' behaviour?

There are genetic alleles/ phenotypes with a lower frequency in the population than that!

[Mr Skeptic]

Genecks said:

Is homosexuality a mental illness?

Like any other categorization, that depends entirely on the definition of the category. I think that the current definition of a mental illness requires that it cause clinically significant distress or disability that is not primarily a result of social deviance or conflicts with society.

So I'd say no, it doesn't qualify.

Quote

Well, I'd like to consider the sex drive in reference to its design. In its design, it can serve in the function of reproduction. As such, homosexuals, living truly as homosexuals with no intention of reproducing with a female, are not living out their biological function. And their refusal/inability/non-desire to carry out their biological function goes against neurobiological programming in reference to reproduction...

Since when are things supposed to serve their original function and only ever that one function? Is having sex while using birth control a mental illness? Are nerves cells with a physiological disorder (they frequently leak the Na/K gradient cells are supposed to have)?

Quote

I don't truly believe evolution provided persons with a gene to be homosexual. I think that knock-out function of a gene could cause people to behave abnormally, thus homosexual. But I don't think nature provided people with a functional gay gene, as that would work against concepts of reproduction in order to sustain life. Evolution can act to increase fitness. As such, genes that come into existence would more than likely exist to sustain/increase fitness.

But are you sure? What if there is a gene that produces attraction to men, would it not then serve a useful reproductive role in women? And remember, siblings are just as valuable evolutionarily as children (1/2 your genes), so a specific individual's reproduction is by far not the only thing that matters for evolution.

[iNow]

Mr Skeptic said:

What if there is a gene that produces attraction to men, would it not then serve a useful reproductive role in women?

Interesting point. Perhaps genetically there could exist an attraction for specific sexes, and this could impact us prior to sexual differentiation.

[pink_trike]

Genecks said:

As such, homosexuals, living truly as homosexuals with no intention of reproducing with a female, are not living out their biological function. And their refusal/inability/non-desire to carry out their biological function goes against neurobiological programming in reference to reproduction...

So, in that sense, I could say it's a mental illness.
It seems absolutely reasonable to me.

Some questions for you to consider:

You seem to be saying that if humans don't reproduce if they are physically able to then they are mentally ill. If we follow that logic stream, then you seem to be saying that mentally healthy humans are slaves to our neurobiological programming. Or do we have the ability to consciously reflect and make informed decisions regarding our reproductive behavior?

Are hets who decline to reproduce for ethical (or any) reason mentally ill?

Are celibate nuns and monks mentally ill because they don't reproduce?

Are people who don't begin reproducing immediately upon reaching puberty mentally ill?

Are people who use birth control mentally ill?

Are hets who are impotent (inability) or asexual (in terms of sexual desire) mentally ill?

Is it possible to determine whether homosexuality is mentally ill or healthy in a culture that institutionalizes and enforces heterosexuality for reasons that have nothing to do with reproductivity?

Given that sexual orientation falls on a spectrum between exclusively homo and exclusively hetero with every degree of orientation in between...does that mean that only exclusively hetero people are mentally healthy ( a very small group, statistically - when looking at desire rather than behavior).

Are homosexual people who function as hetero and reproduce mentally healthy?

Are hetero people who function as homo in the absence of the other gender mentally ill?

Are bisexual people mentally ill?

Are functional heteros that experience homo desire but not behavior mentally healthy or ill?

Is there a difference between desire and behavior?

Does sexual orientation in the human species ebb and flow between peaks of hetero and homo over long periods of time, influenced by factors similar to those that produce breeding seasons and cyclical peaks and valleys of reproduction in mammals?

Are heteros who mindlessly reproduce in the face of resource shortages and overpopulation mentally ill?

Is the pathologization or demonization of homo desire and/or behavior mentally ill?

Is sexual desire a mental function?

Is sexual desire a physical function?

Is homosexuality also a physical illness? Or just a mental illness?

Is engaging in heterosexual reproduction without sexual desire a mental illness?

Is physical desire a basis upon which to determine mental health?

Is a man who loves another man and experiences sexual desire mentally ill?

Is a woman who loves another women and experiences sexual desire mentally ill?

Is a hetero woman who loves a man but experiences no sexual desire mentally ill?

Is a hetero man that rapes a women causing reproduction to occur mentally healthy?

How deeply have you researched the history of homosexual desire and behavior in the human species? How much do you know about older cultures (all over the globe) that viewed homosexuality as a "sacred" manifestation? Are you aware that many high functioning cultures institutionalized homosexuality? Or that some ritualized it into their highest spiritual beliefs?

Have you given thought to how homosexuality might be necessary, even essential, to the survival of the human species?

What are we to make of thumbprint density, increased counterclockwise hair whorls, longer average finger length, larger average penis length and girth, and higher average IQ among homo men?

What are the social, legal, and psychological ramifications of pathologizing millions of people's love and desire?

Have you examined what familial, cultural, and intrapsychic factors might have influenced you to think that it is "reasonable" to view homosexuality as a mental illness?

These questions are just a tiny tip of the iceberg. Lots of questions to think about before you start pathologizing real people.

This post has been edited by pink_trike: 6 May 2010 - 04:14 AM

[Double K]

So then (pink_trike) you are saying homosexuality is a choice, and not a biologically driven need?

There is a difference between desire and behaviour - the answer is choice.
All of the points you made come down to choice.

I personally don't believe it is a "choice". I used to think it was, but after lengthy discussions with gay people (for the record I myself am not)
but to them it was a desire. Something deep seeded, something that they felt and not something that they chose.
Now of course performing the act (behaviour) is a choice to some degree.
However the initial attraction was not.

It's also worthy of note that primates and humans are the only creatures which mate for pleasure...(and there are no recorded incidences of primates performing homosexual acts) which means it is a condition only (in nature) isolated to humans - which tells me that other factors need to be considered...

The main issue is that "feelings" can never be explained with logic, and as science tries to break everything into logical data - I dont feel science will ever have the answer to this one, and certainly not a quackdom like psychology.

[iNow]

Double K said:

It's also worthy of note that primates and humans are the only creatures which mate for pleasure.

This is false.

Double K said:

there are no recorded incidences of primates performing homosexual acts

This is also false.

Double K said:

The main issue is that "feelings" can never be explained with logic

False again.

[Double K]

iNow said:

This is false.
source?

This is also false.
source?

False again.

source?

http://en.wikipedia....exual_behaviour
Science cannot say at present conclusively what animals do or do not find "pleasurable", a question considered in more depth under Emotion in animals. The urban myth website Snopes.com considers this particular view in depth. Its conclusions are broadly that the statement is true, but only using a very specific definition of "sex for pleasure"

[iNow]

Your argument that only humans and primates have sex for pleasure is ridiculous on its face. Sex is about the pleasure response and nothing else, for humans and non-humans alike. We don't have sex to reproduce. We have sex because it feels good and the orgasm response is reinforced through dopamine, oxytocin, and serotonin. Those chemicals are released in the same way through sex as they are in usage of addictive drugs, and this is consistent across species... primates and non-primates alike. It's the brain's way of encouraging the behavior to occur again. This is a clear evolved response, and it applies to all animals in much the same way that we take pleasure from eating. Dolphins are the obvious example, but even more obvious is how evolution would have selected for animals which had sex and reproduced more frequently.


Homosexual acts in non-primates? I have a whole thread on it. I don't feel the need to repeat myself, so go here if you're curious:
http://www.sciencefo...ead.php?t=36687


Logic of emotions? I tell you what... try a few semesters of neuroscience, and once you're all caught up I can tell you what you're still missing if you've failed to amend your current position.

[Double K]

iNow said:

Your argument that only humans and primates have sex for pleasure is ridiculous on its face. Sex is about the pleasure response and nothing else, for humans and non-humans alike.

Logic of emotions? I tell you what... try a few semesters of neuroscience, and once you're all caught up I can tell you what you're still missing if you've failed to amend your current position.

I assume you are referring to the purpose of the cerebral limbic system and specifically the Amygdala. There are several other structures linking reciporically to the limbic system also, but I think Amygdala is the one responsible for 'processing' emotion no?
Unfortunately neuroscience analyses the how of the emotional response, not the why - and in my opinion the why is the key to that argument.

And just to respond to the top part - Sex is not about pleasure. There are plenty of animals that reproduce (through methods other than sex also) but don't do it for pleasure as they are so simple that their brains dont contain a pleasure centre.

"However, concerning the emotions, in particular how such human emotions function, we are almost carried into the realms of supposition."
http://www.matsuishi...mJ_E(final).htm

[StringJunky]

Double K said:

It's also worthy of note that primates and humans are the only creatures which mate for pleasure...(and there are no recorded incidences of primates performing homosexual acts) which means it is a condition only (in nature) isolated to humans - which tells me that other factors need to be considered...

There's loads of species that have individuals on the pink side of sexual behavior, including bonobo monkeys...primates if I'm not mistaken. Surprised me actually its prevalence....is there anything Wikipedia hasn't documented?

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis"

http://en.wikipedia....exual_behaviour

This post has been edited by StringJunky: 6 May 2010 - 05:10 AM

[Double K]

StringJunky said:

There's loads of species that have individuals on the pink side of sexual behavior, including bonobo monkeys...primates if I'm not mistaken. Surprised me actually its prevalence....is there anything Wikipedia hasn't documented?

http://en.wikipedia....exual_behaviour

Ok I'll concede I was wrong on that point! (in the face of overwhelming evidence...ouch!)

Apparantly we (animals in general) are all just hornbags. Perhaps its more of a "mental disorder" then to NOT have sex with anything that moves or be
'try-sexual'

(from the same link as above)

While it is commonly believed that animal sexuality is instinctive and thus somewhat mechanistic, research regularly records that many animals are sexual opportunists, partaking in sexual relations with individuals of visibly distinct species [43]. This is more visible in domesticated species and animals in captivity, as domestication commonly selects for increased breeding rate (and so an accelerated breeding cycle has commonly arisen in domesticated species over the centuries), and also because these species are more easily observed by humans. Nevertheless, animals have been observed in the wild to attempt sexual activity with other species or indeed inanimate objects. Attempts by wild moose to obtain sex from domestic horses are apparently well known by wildlife specialists.[citation needed]

In the wild, where observation is harder, genetic studies have shown a "large number" of inter-species hybrids, and other investigations describe productive and non-productive inter-species mating as a "natural occurrence".[44] Recent genetic evidence strongly suggesting this has occurred even within the history of the human species, and that early humans often had sexual activity with other primate species

[pink_trike]

Double K said:

So then (pink_trike) you are saying homosexuality is a choice, and not a biologically driven need?

There is a difference between desire and behaviour - the answer is choice.
All of the points you made come down to choice.

I personally don't believe it is a "choice". I used to think it was, but after lengthy discussions with gay people (for the record I myself am not)
but to them it was a desire. Something deep seeded, something that they felt and not something that they chose.
Now of course performing the act (behaviour) is a choice to some degree.
However the initial attraction was not.

It's also worthy of note that primates and humans are the only creatures which mate for pleasure...(and there are no recorded incidences of primates performing homosexual acts) which means it is a condition only (in nature) isolated to humans - which tells me that other factors need to be considered...

The main issue is that "feelings" can never be explained with logic, and as science tries to break everything into logical data - I dont feel science will ever have the answer to this one, and certainly not a quackdom like psychology.

I was just putting out questions that the OP might benefit from thinking about before arriving at such a peculiarly narrow conclusion.

Behavior is choice. Desire isn't choice.

As someone with a Master's in Clinical Psychology, a Master's in Counseling Psychology, and a couple of decades of psychotherapy private practice...I find your idea that psychology is "quackdom" amusing. I wish I could hear you say that to all the countless clients that recovered psychological/emotional stability and found contentment and happiness. And to all the countless clients that gave up self destructive tendencies. And to those who discovered a will to live after wanting to die. And to those who gave up compulsive behaviors. And those that let go of self-loathing. And those that were finally able to forgive those who had violated them in ways that no one should have to experience. I'd like to hear you say that to all of the people who recovered from hurt, anxiety, psychological pain, alienating defenses. They would set you straight quickly.

[Double K]

I do apologise, I actually intended to say psychiatry was the quackdom.

Pyschology I do believe works wonders.

Let me just quantify that before you nail me for that comment too.
It has been my observation in many cases that psychiatrists tend to prescribe drugs as a matter of course, rather than actually address the deep underlying issues that cause the depression - I believe in holistic treatments (which pyschology addresses) and I do not believe psychiatry tackles the problem from an holistic angle. Perhaps it wasn't always this way but I have
seen many friends whom suffered long at the hands of phsychiatry on several different forms of medications and eventually moved off them (and went to psychologists) and then improved.

[pink_trike]

Double K said:

I do apologise, I actually intended to say psychiatry was the quackdom.

Pyschology I do believe works wonders.

Let me just quantify that before you nail me for that comment too.

Thanks for the clarification. :)

Imo, psychiatry is dangerous and borders on the criminal.

[ewmon]

I have a deep and abiding sympathy and concern for everyone's life, and the inherent need for people to live their lives honestly. However, here’s my scientific two cents’ worth … IMO ...

Procreation. Homosexuality and heterosexuality differ in that homosexuals cannot be created homosexually nor can they procreate homosexually. For all the reasons to engage in sexual activity, homosexuality parallels heterosexuality except for procreation. In this sense, homosexuals and homosexuality are literally offshoots of heterosexuals and heterosexuality and depend upon them, but not vice versa.

Gender ratio. Scientifically, humans conceive roughly 130 to 150 males per 100 females conceived. During the fetal stage, many more males are lost to spontaneous abortions than females (males are apparently more difficult to “make” than females). This results in about 105 males born per 100 females. Due to disease and accident, by the time they reach procreative age, there are very close to 100 breeding males per 100 breeding females. This is naturally logical apparently for equal access to procreation and/or adult companionship. If nature/evolution intended for the existence of homosexuality, it would need to affect both genders equally, otherwise it would disturb the apparent purpose of equal access (for example, resulting in 90 breeding males per 95 breeding females, etc). Statistics (even those conducted by pro-gay groups) show that homosexuality does not affect both genders equally. However, the inequality of more gay men than lesbian women would coincide with the theory that the male population has a larger sigma (ie, more are mentally gifted and more are mentally challenged) than females. I do believe that biological causes exist for homosexuality, but I don't know that they necessarily make homosexuality normal or acceptable.

Five years old. To me, this shows a significant variation with at least some homosexuals who have claimed that they knew they were gay when they were about five years old. I was a kid once (really!), and I clearly remember being five years old and younger. Back then, I knew that boys and girls differed, but I had no desire of any sort for either. Little kids may talk about growing up to be a man or a woman or a mommy or a daddy (and they might confuse their gender in this way), but I sincerely do not believe that normal children have desires of any sort related to sexuality. So, the idea that “homosexuality is simply the same as heterosexuality except for a different gender as an amorous target” does not make perfect sense to me.

Consenting adults. The idea of “consenting adults” is not a carte blanche excuse in most modern societies. Societies form very strong preferences surrounding what they allow as consenting adult sexual behavior. Most modern societies prohibit incest, prostitution, polygamy, polyandry, etc, and they frown upon pornography, mistresses, fetishes, BDSM, erotic asphyxiation, bestiality, necrophilia, etc … all engaged in by consenting adults.

Age of consent. Societies seem to establish sexual age of consent based on procreative and health reasons (that is, 12-year-olds can procreate but shouldn’t because they are still developing children, who cannot yet care for or support a baby, a pregnancy damages the girl’s health, etc). With homosexuality, such natural concerns don’t exist. For example, 12-year-old homosexuals engaging in sexual behavior with each other or adults. And the age of consent becomes fuzzy, artificial or, again, borrowed from heterosexuals.