[StringJunky]

Double K said:

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

Kudos for conceding in the face of the evidence. One often finds in matters like these that it's social pressure during ones formative years that colours ones perception and dictates how we are socially supposed to perceive it. An open mind and a search of the evidence can reveal a contrary result...as in this case. I think these qualities are paramount to be a good scientist.

I was as prejudiced as anyone 25 years ago but the evidence and much personal rumination over the years with a clinical eye has changed that. I have reached the point now where if I wanted to express myself that way I would...but I don't..it's not me.

I would go as far as to say homosexual behaviour is socially cohesive rather than destructive as evidenced by Bonobos as an example...a well chilled bunch of primates as far as I've read. What better way to neutralise an aggressive situation between potentially lethal opponents than to arouse each others pleasure centres?

Homosexuality a mental illness? A behaviour/thought pattern detrimental to an individual or group...an open mind reveals that is not the case.

This post has been edited by StringJunky: 6 May 2010 - 03:15 PM

[pink_trike]

ewmon said:

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.

When I was 6 years old I very clearly experienced sexual/emotional desire for men and boys. I had no exposure to sexuality of any kind prior to this awareness. I wanted to be naked with and touch other boys and men, as much as I wanted to hug and kiss with them for emotional satisfaction. I also preferred the company of men and boys, having no interest in women and girls at any level of experience other than friend. I was very clear that I was different from some other boys and from dominant expectations, and knew instinctively that I needed to be very careful who I revealed this to.

I was also left-handed (though i was eventually trained to ambidextrous), have a counterclockwise hair whorl, longer than average fingers, tighter thumbnail density, large than average penis girth and length, and above average IQ...all of which are found more commonly in gay men. And I have never experienced sexual desire for a woman. It is as obvious as the nose on my face that I was born gay, and I've never had even a moment of doubt that this is the case. Most gay people have been saying the same thing for decades, but oddly, our experience of our own development is rejected as biased. The idea that gay people choose their orientation or arrive at it via a mental dysfunction is absurd and tells us more about those who believe such a thing than it does about gay people. And the idea that participating in reproduction determines whether one is mentally healthy or ill is delusional. The real question about homosexuality is:

Why do a small group of het folks experience the need to pathologize or demonize gay people, rather than see homosexuality as a natural variation that likely benefits the human organism in ways that go unnoticed in the majority rule paradigm - a sloppy view that illogically suggest that since most people appear to be hetero (in a culture that institutionalizes and enforces heterosexuality!) therefore gay people must be an aberration...the same paradigm that has in the past pathologized (as mental deficiency or illness) other differences such as race, gender, physical ability, left handed, head shape and size, etc... This childlike attempt at logic would get a "fail" from any teacher of logic, yet it goes unchallenged among those who prefer not to look at the familial, cultural, and intrapersonal psychic factors that shape their sloppy biased thought patterns in an attempt to reject and project their own insecurities related to differences.

[ewmon]

Trike, thank you for your openness and honesty. As far as I know, your account of early childhood does not parallel heterosexual accounts. For example, at six years old, I did not want to get naked with and touch, hug and kiss little girls or women to satisfy my sexual or emotional desires. I did not have such desires … at least not consciously, nor did I act or try to act to those ends subconsciously. I believe that such desires do not normally exist in very young children.

So, if such desires don’t normally exist in very young children, it means that, when they do exist, they do so under abnormal conditions. I don’t say this to insult anyone or to hurt their feelings. I’m just making a logical, scientific statement to explain such childhood accounts. I think that, if you asked around about what heterosexuals felt at six years old, you would hear accounts similar to mine. I’m not exactly sure what my conclusion means. I’m simply saying that, if it’s not normal, then logically, it’s abnormal. Someone could argue that it’s normal for homosexuals, and I would agree.

Let me add that I have had many different life experiences with various people, including homosexuals, with whom I have associated, worked, and/or lived. I am straight as an arrow, and I have shared bedrooms with at least three gay men (that I know of) in three separate sleeping situations which were also on long-term bases (ie, several months). I never felt threatened by them, and I feel no enmity toward anyone. I don’t intend to demonize anyone, or to suggest that anyone belongs in a mental institution, etc.

PS … I’m left-handed, so I know a little of what it’s like to be different. If someone were to suggest that it's due to lack of oxygen (and, thus, brain damage) at birth, which is an actual theory, I would neither agree nor disagree with them. Lefthandedness is certainly different and in the minority, and I don't know why.

[Double K]

ewmon said:

Lefthandedness is certainly different and in the minority, and I don't know why.

I remember hearing/reading somewhere that left handedness is in the majority of cases the norm - but that it (has in the past) been "trained" out of us at school as a means of "normalisation" (when I say this I mean bringing everyone to the 'norm', not that it's abnormal)
This is a cultural thing....

Also I remember being caught at pretty young age (cant recall exactly what age it was) but would have been around 6 to 8, that I was caught with a young girl of the same age from my school we were messing around in a sexual fashion although I cant say we understood what was really going on we were certainly exploring. We got in HUGE trouble...that part I remember well. However it was perfectly innocent and naive - but really whats to say most kids dont desire this but close supervision by parents prevents it?
Anyways my point is that personally, I certainly experimented with females at a young age, which I guess is as much an indication as anything.

When they determine 'handedness' these days it's through observations of which hand the child naturally favors, if this is the logic for that preferencial behaviour then surely it should be a good indicator also with sexual behaviour?

[pioneer]

The ability to reproduce is one of the fundamental biological definitions of life.

Quote

In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.

Sexuality, connects humans to one of the most fundamental biological definitions of life; reproduction. If one's direction of sexuality can not lead to reproduction, one is not exactly under the biological definition of life. It is not exactly fully alive, according to the biological definition, if any of the conditions are not met.

Quote

In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies. Both offer interpretations as to how life relates to existence and consciousness, and both touch on many related issues, including life stance, purpose, conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife.

Although homosexual does not fully fit the biological definition of life, since it leave out the basic conditions of viable reproduction, it can be defined in terms of a philosophical definition; of the mind and brain.

A good way to explain this distinction is to consider eating. The impulses and pleasure of eating is like a carrot on the string, which makes sure we input all the energy and nutrients needed by the body. But at the level of the biological definition, the goal of this eating carrot on the string is; Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow... This is how the carrot connects to life.

The philosophical diversity about what to eat, how to eat, what utensils to use, how to dress, occurs via the manipulation of the carrot. The prime directive of life or metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow is the same regardless.

We can manipulate the carrot so we eat for pleasure in a way that can interfere with metabolism, maintaining homeostasis, or alter our capacity to grow. This can be a philosophy, but would be one which moves the carrot in a direction away from the directions of life. This is done with willpower and the brain; mind over matter. Animals can't do this philosophically but need to rely more on the biology of behavior.

Sexuality is the impulse and pleasure carrot on the string leading to reproduction. It is among the strongest carrots because reproduction is fundamental to the definition of biological life. This carrot can also be manipulated with philosophy allowing one to depart from the requirements of the biological definition of life.

[Moontanman]

ewmon said:

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 ...

I'll give mine as well.

Quote

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.

Believe it or not homosexuals can indeed have sex with the opposite sex so this ignores reality completely.

Quote

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.

Do you have access to these statistics? I want to believe you but I'd like to see something other than your assertions.

Quote

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.

This is totally anecdotal and has no real meaning. I can also remember back to five years old and beyond, i was a total horn dog and chased little girls with total abandon all through my childhood.

Quote

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.

What does the morality of religions and or societies have to do with this? Some societies consider it moral to kill your sister or daughter if she wears reveling clothing or marries outside your religion, morality is not a way to judge anyone.

Quote

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.

Again this has no bearing on anything, homosexuals are part of the same society as heterosexuals it's no surprise they have similar rules and morals.

This post has been edited by Moontanman: 30 July 2010 - 04:03 AM

[pink_trike]

[quote name='Moontanman'][QUOTE]

Believe it or not homosexuals can indeed have sex with the opposite sex so this ignores reality completely.

[/QUOTE]

Not only that, but homosexuals reproduce quite frequently. Prior to gay people abandoning the closet, there were just as many gay people as there are today - and just like everyone else at that time, most of them married and had kids. This is still happening all over the world. And, modern technology now enables gay people to pop their own babies without hetero intercourse.

[ewmon]

Moontanman said:

Believe it or not homosexuals can indeed have sex with the opposite sex

Yes, this is called heterosexuality.

Moontanman said:

Do you have access to these statistics [on male-female ratios]? … I'd like to see something other than your assertions.

Conception and Birth Sex Ratios
More Gays than Lesbians

Moontanman said:

This is totally anecdotal and has no real meaning. I can also remember back to five years old and beyond, i was a total horn dog and chased little girls with total abandon all through my childhood.

Most parents, experts, doctors, teachers, police, lawyers, judges, etc consider persistent sexual precociousness (naked, touch, hug, kiss, "horn dog" behavior, etc) in kindergarteners to be abnormal.

Moontanman said:

What does the morality of religions and or societies have to do with this? … homosexuals are part of the same society as heterosexuals it's no surprise they have similar rules and morals.

These references toward societies are ambiguous. Besides, if it didn't matter what society thought (and even this forum is a society), then we would all go our separate ways with our own ideas of everything in the world. Instead, people (as social animals) instinctively care what society thinks. After all, homosexuals want society to accept their lifestyles, marriages, etc.

pink_trike said:

Not only that, but homosexuals reproduce quite frequently. Prior to gay people abandoning the closet, there were just as many gay people as there are today - and just like everyone else at that time, most of them married and had kids. This is still happening all over the world. And, modern technology now enables gay people to pop their own babies without hetero intercourse.

All human reproduction is heterosexuality. Let's review:
hetero- = different
homo- = same
sperm + egg = different = heterosexuality = reproduction.
sperm + sperm or egg + egg = same = homosexuality = nothing.

However, technology may some day make an egg from a sperm or vice versa.

[pink_trike]

ewmon said:

Yes, this is called heterosexuality.

Most parents, experts, doctors, teachers, police, lawyers, judges, etc consider persistent sexual precociousness (naked, touch, hug, kiss, "horn dog" behavior, etc) in kindergarteners to be abnormal.

Behavior isn't the definition of orientation.

Just because something is _considered_ to be abnormal by society or certain people within society doesn't mean that it is _necessarily_ abnormal. Left handedness is an example of this.

Children are sexual beings...modern society doesn't deal with this fact very well and tends to deny it and pathologize it. A healthy society recognizes this fact of nature and skillfully manages this reality.

ewmon said:

All human reproduction is heterosexuality. Let's review:
hetero- = different
homo- = same
sperm + egg = different = heterosexuality = reproduction.
sperm + sperm or egg + egg = same = homosexuality = nothing.

There is nothing innately "heterosexual" about reproduction. My orientation is homosexual. I've had intercourse with women. It could have resulted in conception. My orientation remains homosexual.

homo sperm + hetero egg = homo/hetero breeding = reproduction.

...or, since I've also had intercourse with lesbian women...

homo + homo = homo/homo breeding = reproduction.

A distinction needs to be made between breeding and orientation. Homos have the ability and frequently the inclination to breed, and do so quite regularly. The behavior of cross gender intercourse doesn't negate orientation. I'll have a homo orientation no matter how many people of the other gender I have intercourse with, no matter if it results in reproduction. Homo orientation is much deeper than just behavior.

This post has been edited by pink_trike: 7 May 2010 - 02:35 PM

[StringJunky]

ewmon said:

Most parents, experts, doctors, teachers, police, lawyers, judges, etc consider persistent sexual precociousness (naked, touch, hug, kiss, "horn dog" behavior, etc) in kindergarteners to be abnormal.

.

It isn't that this behaviour is abnormal...it's socially unacceptable inside a community setting like schools, but it still happens. I was admonished at 6 years old by my headmistress for putting my hand down a a female contemporary's knickers. This behaviour is actively repressed in a public setting...quite rightly so! What we did as little boys and girls out of the gaze of adults was a different matter.

Genital exploration and autoerotism is where sexuality starts and these activities start as soon as one discovers ones genitals IMO. It's the concept of pleasuring ANOTHER person that is beyond the notion of a child...this starts generally, I think, with physical maturation (puberty)

This post has been edited by StringJunky: 7 May 2010 - 03:02 PM

[Sayonara³]

ewmon said:

Yes, this is called heterosexuality.

But you pretty much have to accept that a heterosexual act does not magically straighten out gayness.

Quote

After all, homosexuals want society to accept their lifestyles, marriages, etc.

Yes, as a means to eradicate biases and prejudices which have measurable negative effects. Not just for the lulz.

[ewmon]

pink_trike said:

Behavior isn’t the definition of orientation.

Feelings, thoughts and desires drive behavior. Behavior is an expression of what’s inside.

Quote

Just because something is _considered_ to be abnormal by society or certain people within society doesn’t mean that it is _necessarily_ abnormal. Left handedness is an example of this.

Lefthanders are not in the majority, and something not in the majority does not automatically make it abnormal. If this were true, then blonde hair, blue eyes, IQ>115, etc would all be labeled as abnormal.

Quote

Children are sexual beings...modern society doesn’t deal with this fact very well and tends to deny it and pathologize it. A healthy society recognizes this fact of nature and skillfully manages this reality.

Children are sexual beings. It is a well-known fact -- and mainstream American society readily accepts -- that little children explore their bodies and those of other children, and they might even masturbate. But, any behavior at any age is not okay. Kindergarteners having sex is not okay.

Quote

There is nothing innately “heterosexual” about reproduction.

The word “innate” means “existing naturally rather than acquired”. You seem confused or in denial.

Quote

My orientation is homosexual. I’ve had intercourse with women. It could have resulted in conception. My orientation remains homosexual.

homo sperm + hetero egg = homo/hetero breeding = reproduction.

...or, since I’ve also had intercourse with lesbian women...

homo + homo = homo/homo breeding = reproduction.

You’re describing a bisexual man.

Quote

A distinction needs to be made between breeding and orientation. Homos have the ability and frequently the inclination to breed, and do so quite regularly. The behavior of cross gender intercourse doesn’t negate orientation. I’ll have a homo orientation no matter how many people of the other gender I have intercourse with, no matter if it results in reproduction. Homo orientation is much deeper than just behavior.

Trike, there’s plenty of people, even homosexuals, who would call you “bisexual”.

Breeding? Hey look, it was some homosexuals who, in about 1986, began using the derisive term “breeders” to mean “heterosexual persons”. The term “homosexual” was invented in 1869 by human rights campaigner Karl-Maria Kertbeny. The term “heterosexual” was invented 17 years later by psychiatrist Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing to differentiate it from “homosexual”. The modern usage of the term “bisexual” began about 1914. People could invent terms to describe all sorts of orientations. An odd part about sexual orientation is the terminology. People must prove all minority claims, except for sexual orientation. For example, the claim that I’m an elderly, black, Hispanic, Jewish, female, Cuban veteran can be easily (and laughably) disproved.

Sayonara³ said:

But you pretty much have to accept that a heterosexual act does not magically straighten out gayness.

Yeah, that’s pretty bizarre! I would never consider or recommend that a heterosexual act cures homosexuality.

[Sayonara³]

ewmon said:

You’re describing a bisexual man.
...
Yeah, that’s pretty bizarre! I would never consider or recommend that a heterosexual act cures homosexuality.

We've had this discussion before. When people say "homosexuals can't reproduce!!!!" it it usually supported semantically, by tabling incredibly strict definitions of sexual categories that bear little or no resemblance to what actually happens in the real world. And if you aren't describing the real world when supporting a claim, then the claim won't have meaning in that world.

Likewise it's not possible to conflate sexual behaviour with sexual orientation when it suits your definitions, and categorise them differently when it does not, and not expect to be taken to task on it.

[pink_trike]

Quote

My orientation is homosexual. I’ve had intercourse with women. It could have resulted in conception. My orientation remains homosexual.

homo sperm + hetero egg = homo/hetero breeding = reproduction.

...or, since I’ve also had intercourse with lesbian women...

homo + homo = homo/homo breeding = reproduction.

ewmon said:

You’re describing a bisexual man.

No, I'm describing myself...a 1000% gay man. My sexual/affectional orientation is gay (and my "gayness" isn't limited to just sexual/affectional expression - my orientation is my perceptual window to the entire world).

Just because I've had sex with women doesn't mean that I'm bisexual. Behavior isn't necessarily a reflection of orientation. My orientation is gay, but heterosexual behavior is an option available to me...in the same way that someone might have a right handed orientation, but using the left hand is an option.

This post has been edited by pink_trike: 7 May 2010 - 10:31 PM

[ewmon]

Trike, I was composing a response, but now I'll simply ask you:

What are your definitions of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual?

[Moontanman]

ewmon said:

Children are sexual beings. It is a well-known fact -- and mainstream American society readily accepts -- that little children explore their bodies and those of other children, and they might even masturbate. But, any behavior at any age is not okay. Kindergarteners having sex is not okay.

Why are you fixated on kindergärtners? i said all through my childhood.

[pink_trike]

ewmon said:

What are your definitions of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual?

Imo, there aren't any adequate definitions for these terms that can be generally applied to all humans in all situations. At best, they are subjective loose terms that point at non-concrete generalities - a semantic convenience. They are also overly simplistic, archaic, culture-bound, and extremely narrow reductionistic terms that create and impose artificial and arbitrary divisions, and cause more confusion than clarity. They attempt to isolate and reduce sexual behavior (surgically removed from desire/affection/love) down to a simple three sizes fits all formula, while ignoring the complex mix of biological, psychological, political, religious, and cultural factors that shape sexual behavior. But, that's not how life works.

The trend in the psycho/social services sector over the last couple of decades has been one of moving away from understanding these terms as static categories of behavior, viewing them instead as subjectively defined self-identification - with the recognition that there is no static definition for these terms. And, the trend in modern culture is increasingly the abandonment of these three narrow reductionistic identities in favor of not using any identity that is built on the rigidly narrow foundation of only sexual behavior.

Given that affectional/sexual orientation is fluid, meaning that it can change in relationship to many factors during the course of one's life (culture, circumstance, hormones, developmental stage of life, love, age, etc...), perhaps it's time for us to all stop trying to peg people into a narrow range of predefined static categories for life, based on a very narrow slice of the human experience...sexual behavior.

My identification as "gay" (which I rarely use anymore) doesn't mean that I have had sex only with men, or that i can only function sexually with men. It means that I identify culturally and politically as gay. It means that my affectional/emotional/biological urges are spontaneously, instinctively directed toward men. It means that I'm genetically inclined this way to a degree that is unique to me at this particular developmental stage of life. Having had sex with women doesn't change this, nor would having sex with women in the future - in these cases, I was and would be a gay man having sex with women.

[ewmon]

Trike, you repeatedly call yourself a "homosexual", but you say you can't define it. This topic is entitled "Is homosexuality a mental illness?" What are you trying to prove?

[Sayonara³]

ewmon said:

Trike, you repeatedly call yourself a "homosexual", but you say you can't define it. This topic is entitled "Is homosexuality a mental illness?" What are you trying to prove?

Or to put it another way, the question is flawed.

[Moontanman]

ewmon said:

Trike, I was composing a response, but now I'll simply ask you:

What are your definitions of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual?

ewmon, I happen to have a very close relationship with a homosexual man, he is my son, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it is not an on-off, black-white, right-wrong thing either. Early sexual awareness has nothing to do with homosexuality, and all people are capable of responding sexually to any other person, it's the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex that makes you homosexual not an inability to have sex with someone of the opposite sex.

You can have sex with and respond sexually to anyone, humans are highly sexual beings, some are repressed in some way by society or religion but wanting to have sex with someone is far more important than being able to. If suddenly by some unknown means every human on the planet suddenly became homosexual the human race would go on but the reality is that human sexuality is not an on off switch it is a rheostat, a very few are almost completely homosexual or heterosexual but by far most are some where in between.