[pink_trike]

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?

If I'm trying to "prove" anything, it's that those three terms are inadequate and archaic...even delusional. They only serve an attempt by some people to squash all humans into 3 predefined narrow static categories based solely on behavior.

As a convenience in the thread, I referred to myself as "homosexual" since the OP used that antiquated term to frame his points. I was quickly informed that no, I couldn't be a "homosexual" because I had in the past engaged in intercourse with women, therefore I was actually a "bisexual". As if anyone could possibly make that determination for me...and never mind that sizable chunks of both hetero and homo identified people have had and do have sex outside of their "identity". Being a gay man who has and may again have sex with women violates the psychic order of those who find comfort in pegging people into one of those three narrow boxes - but I'll be the one who defines myself.

I'm not alone in this view. In the psycho/social services sector, the term MSM is now used in safer sex outreach in order to connect with a huge population of men who identify and primarily function as hetero but that engage in sex with men in varying degrees of frequency. These men don't identify as bisexual or gay. Should we try to stuff these people into one of those three boxes according to archaic and rigid definitions that are based on sexual behavior? Or should we understand that affectional/sexual identity is more complex than purely sexual behavior?

---

And, my point in general in the thread has been that if there is mental illness to be found related to whether someone reproduces or not, a more likely candidate for that diagnosis might be those who reproduce in a narcissistic vacuum with no clear understanding of why they do so, and with no regard for the ecological cost of that selfish, mindless act. There are 6.5 billion people on the planet currently, and the human population is projected to increase to 9.5 billion in the next 40ish years - at a time when the extinction rate of plants and living beings is 1000 times greater than the last major extinction event that took place 65 million years ago, and the resources of the world, including water, are becoming scarce. And yet, human reproduction is institutionalized and culturally enforced, and those who decline to reproduce are stigmatized, ridiculed, and even claimed to be mentally ill.

Gregory Bateson said:

"The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between the way nature works and the way people think".

I could make a pretty good case that poppin' babies to the point of threatening death to the ecosystem and all it's living beings (including humans) is an estrangement and alienation from the natural world that qualifies as a mental dysfunction bordering on psychosis.

This post has been edited by pink_trike: 9 May 2010 - 02:21 AM

[ewmon]

Sayonara³, the question is clear to those who don’t play word games: Is the erotic feeling for members of the same gender a mental illness?

Moontanman, you accused me of responding with personal experiences, yet you make blanket assumptions about the entire world.

And, as for pink_trike, he calls himself a “homosexual”, but then he says he can’t define it.

I know what the question means, I know what I know, and I gave my answer.

[Sayonara³]

ewmon said:

Sayonara³, the question is clear to those who don’t play word games: Is the erotic feeling for members of the same gender a mental illness?

It seems to me that the content of the entire thread adequately demonstrates that the question assumes definitions which don't reflect reality. As such, I see no reason why anyone should kowtow to those provisions.

If we are going to strip back the question to "Is the erotic feeling for members of the same gender a mental illness?" then I would feel compelled to respond with the following question:

"Why is attraction to females expected from males but suddenly a 'mental illness' when seen in females?"

When one puts the situation in those terms it becomes more apparent where the positive claim lies.

[pink_trike]

Isn't it interesting that this question of whether homosexuality is a mental illness continues to surface? Imo, there is something seriously unbalanced in a culture where aggression and violence among hetero men is glorified, even institutionalized (the average child by the time they are 18 has witnessed over 250,000 graphically portrayed murders via electronic media) and that has become a cultural norm with staggeringly bloody statistics - but a large group of homo men who live together in high achieving cooperative communities with virtually no violence is persistently, decade after decade (in some cultures), declared to be mentally ill and by extension "unnatural" by a not small group of hetero (usually) men. The primary justification of this diagnosis/judgement is nearly always based on a seemingly irrational belief that gay men don't do what "nature" supposedly intends them to do...reproduce.

I'm genuinely curious...what logic path is used by those who support this belief? How does one arrive at the idea that heterosexual reproduction should be understood as a defining factor of optimal mental health, and by extension, understood as the only mentally healthy "natural" sex drive? It seems evident to me that there are multiple drives associated with the sexual impulse that are equally natural and beneficial to society. (I know that religion plays a large part in devaluing all drives but reproduction, but religion doesn't pretend to be logical so I'm not interested - I'm only interested in how some people attempt to use logic to justify this curious belief).

As an example: sexual relationships among men have the marked effect of minimizing aggression and violence, and of promoting cooperation and stability...surely this is vitally important to the human species for it's survival...perhaps even _equally_as important as reproduction.

Also,when contrasting homosexual community to heterosexual community, it becomes quickly evident that heterosexuality can't be realistically separated from aggression and violence (although it goes without saying that not all hetero men are violent). In systems theory there is the recognition that all systems have an innate governing mechanism...when a system moves toward a "runaway" status, as all systems tend toward, the governor kicks in to regulate the system toward homeostasis. It seems "natural" to me that in an organism that has a tendency toward runaway aggression, violence, and procreation, all of which are tied to institutionalized heterosexuality and the hetero impulse, that there would be a naturally occurring mechanism for the neutralization of these tendencies in the interest of balance and survival. Homosexuality fulfills this function very nicely...one wonders why it isn't encouraged as an antidote to the runaway system of institutionalized and enforced heterosexuality that destabilizes/threatens society and the ecosystem upon which the species depends on for continued existence. It isn't hard to understand why so many premodern stable cultures developed ways of integrating homosexual people productively into society, and in some cases even institutionalized it.

So, how do we account for this pathologization and demonization of homosexuality that persists in some cultures in the face of decades and mountains of research that show that gay people are just as psychologically well-adjusted as hets (and somewhat more well adjusted in some categories, such as the ability to easily incorporate and accept differences)? Is a belief that heterosexuality is a defining factor of optimal mental health, and that homosexuality should be eliminated, irrational? Can this belief become pathological? Can the rejection of homosexuality be considered a mental illness if it is understood that such a belief is inconsistent with reality and detrimental to the species?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moontanman said:

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.

Your son is very lucky to have a father who possesses such clarity.

This post has been edited by pink_trike: 9 May 2010 - 04:34 AM
Reason for edit: Consecutive posts merged.

[ewmon]

Everyone, please note that throughout all my posts that I have never said that homosexuality is a mental illness.

Sayonara, as the OP insinuated at the beginning, the mental health establishment (ie, the governments, the religious institutions, and the psychological/psychiatric industries) had, for a very long time, considered homosexuality a mental illness, which invalidates your claim that this connection has “suddenly” appeared. What has suddenly appeared is Trike, in effect, apparently calling heterosexuality a mental illness.

Trike, I wholeheartedly agree that the glorification of aggression and violence is a “social mental illness”, for lack of a better term — and oddly enough, the most highly decorated war veteran I have ever met (and he was very highly decorated) was a homosexual named John who eventually committed murder. You also question “How does one arrive at the idea that heterosexual reproduction should be understood as a defining factor of optimal mental health”, and yet, homosexuals seek fulfillment in life by imitating reproduction (ie, adoption, etc). You say you “know that religion plays a large part in devaluing all drives but reproduction”, and yet, this is a patently false generalization that ignores mainstream American Christianity and the Bible. You say that “sexual relationships among men have the marked effect of minimizing aggression and violence”, and yet, gay men have told me again and again about gay-on-gay and other violence by homosexuals. Brian told me that his partner often forced sex on him (ie, raped him); Gary told me that his partner always forced him to be the bottom (ie, again, raped him); Jules ended up killing someone, and as stated previously, John was extremely violent. You say that “heterosexuality can’t be realistically separated from aggression and violence ... [and that it] destabilizes/threatens society and the ecosystem upon which the species depends on for continued existence”, and yet, this is patently false and unsupportable, and of course, heterosexuality actually perpetuates the species. And you say that “gay people are just as psychologically well-adjusted as hets, and somewhat more well adjusted in some categories”, and yet, my personal experiences, which involves many homosexuals, does not support this.

I think that everyone should strive to understand all sexuality, but we must do this scientifically using fact, not fiction. I know that I provide personal facts on this subject, and I can provide more, but I have not made false statements. And, for example, just because I have an FTM relative (who I care for dearly), doesn’t suddenly make me an expert on FTMs, but I could relate my personal experiences about it (for example, it didn’t surprise me when he came out).

[Sayonara³]

ewmon said:

Everyone, please note that throughout all my posts that I have never said that homosexuality is a mental illness.

Most people here realise you don't need to have a personal stake in a topic to debate it, so I wouldn't worry ;)

Quote

Sayonara, as the OP insinuated at the beginning, the mental health establishment (ie, the governments, the religious institutions, and the psychological/psychiatric industries) had, for a very long time, considered homosexuality a mental illness, which invalidates your claim that this connection has “suddenly” appeared. What has suddenly appeared is Trike, in effect, apparently calling heterosexuality a mental illness.

Errr... someone may have made that claim of sudden appearance but I am fairly certain it was not me.

I am well aware of the status that was held by homosexuals earlier in the twentieth century, and how things changed. That's why threads like this will always make me want to die inside a bit. Because even though the transcripts from the parliamentary debates and the records of the court proceedings - which determined that calling homosexuality a mental illness is definitely NOT acceptable - are all a matter of public record, you still get threads like this which inevitably get taken over by people waving their facile, ill-informed, bigoted opinions about despite being entirely in the wrong.

Not that that is happening yet in this thread, but I guarantee you it will eventually.

I think that the best way to counter this is to show that the burden of proof was shifted before the thread even started. It's not incumbent on anyone any more to justify homosexuality not being a mental illness. Society has answered that question more than adequately.

Instead, someone making the positive claim "homosexuality IS a mental illness" has the onus to justify that claim.

Let's take Genecks' bubble of reasoning from the OP:

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...

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

This is what you call a "House of Cards". It may well 'sound reasonable', but that doesn't make it a logically sound or valid argument.

For example, if you're going to characterise homosexual people (at odds with reality) as being mentally ill because they are not meeting some arbitrary standard you have set, then you have to throw the celibates in with them as well. No, you're not celibate, you're very very ill. Back in the padded cell.

And if you're going to make the claim that the standard isn't arbitrary, but fixed in stone by our oh so demanding neurobiology, then one has to wonder why people's lack of deference to other such demands aren't also an issue of contention. Like, why aren't you also mentally ill if you decline to smash **** out of the faces of your love rivals?

Whatever way you choose to take these arguments they always, always, always rely at some point on logical fallacies, and it is usually - but not always, I have to say - a case of special pleading.

[pioneer]

If you look at drug addiction, the compulsive effect look almost instinctive, due to the nature of the blind compulsion. However, because some of the drugs are so new and many are synthetic, there is not sufficient time for genetic evolution to have spawned a genetic cause and effect for a particular drug.

The addiction is learned behavior, induced by many personal and social factors. This is made easier to reinforce, because of the pleasure or well being that the drug gives. The entire effect leads to behavior that can become so natural looking and compulsive. I tend to think homosexuality works in the same way, with the mind creating a behavior that fools science to think it is instinctive. If there was a substance to collect from a blood sample, it would be easier to see. But the imagination doesn't leave traces in the blood.

Alcohol addiction has been around for millennia, since the invention of alcohol. Although genetics can play a role in this addiction, specific genetics is not necessary to become a drunk. All it takes is the right circumstances to learn and reinforce the behavior until it is second nature.

If we celebrated being a drunk as a valid social choice (as good as drinking water), we could reveal more "closet drunks", since they can freely learn this self reinforcing behavior without any countering social inhibitions to its linear addiction. This could also occur at a younger age so the second nature effect occurs sooner. Then we can say it is due to genetics.

If you questioned a drug addict or alcoholic and ask them if they could substitute food for their compulsion, they can't very easily, since they only have an appetite for their chosen drug; sounds like homosexuality. Also if you confronted a drug addict or drunk and tried to tell them this is not good (moral high horse), they can come up with all types of reasons why this is who they are and who they want to be.

This post has been edited by pioneer: 9 May 2010 - 03:05 PM

[Sayonara³]

pioneer said:

If you look at drug addiction, the compulsive effect look almost instinctive, due to the nature of the blind compulsion. However, because some of the drugs are so new and many are synthetic, there is not sufficient time for genetic evolution to have spawned a genetic cause and effect for a particular drug.

Except in all those cases where there is genetic predisposition to becoming addicted to the extant biochemical response that such synthetic drugs trigger. Point Fail!

Quote

The addiction is learned behavior, induced by many personal and social factors. This is made easier to reinforce, because of the pleasure or well being that the drug gives. The entire effect leads to behavior that can become so natural looking and compulsive. I tend to think homosexuality works in the same way, with the mind creating a behavior that fools science to think it is instinctive.

Just to clarify: are you saying that you think homosexuality is a learned behaviour, which can masquerade as being "natural"?

If so, firstly WOW. Secondly, it should be a trivial matter to formulate a falsifiable hypothesis that can test this conjecture... oh wait, waaaay too late.

Quote

Alcohol addiction has been around for millennia, since the invention of alcohol. Although genetics can play a role in this addiction, specific genetics is not necessary to become a drunk. All it takes is the right circumstances to learn and reinforce the behavior until it is second nature.

Being 'a drunk' is not the same as being alcohol dependent. "Functioning alcoholics" have physiological differences to you and I that result in their bodies essentially shutting down without a certain level of alcohol intake.

Quote

If we celebrated being a drunk as a valid social choice (as good as drinking water), we could reveal more "closet drunks", since they can freely learn this self reinforcing behavior without any countering social inhibitions to its linear addiction. This could also occur at a younger age so the second nature effect occurs sooner. Then we can say it is due to genetics.

We can say anything is due to genetics. But if we want to be taken seriously it helps to show data that supports a specific, falsifiable hypothesis.

Quote

If you questioned a drug addict or alcoholic and ask them if they could substitute food for their compulsion, they can't very easily, since they only have an appetite for their chosen drug;

In the case of drugs, it depends on the drug in question.
In the case of alcohol, if you're talking about your average habitual binge drinker then I tend to agree. But if you're talking about actual alcoholism then you are grossly misinformed.

Quote

sounds like homosexuality.

Only in the sense that in your frankly vacuous opinion you've couched it in those un-empirical, simplistic, and unreal terms.

Quote

Also if you confronted a drug addict or drunk and tried to tell them this is not good (moral high horse), they can come up with all types of reasons why this is who they are and who they want to be.

Drug addicts tend to agree with you, then go off and score later on.
Alcoholics talk gibberish. Believe me, I've tried.
This last paragraph of yours seems to imply that if homosexuals object to you criticising their existence then it's okay, you can just laugh off their objections as the same gibberish that you would expect from the druggies and the drunks.

Which has to be one of the most disingenuous things I've seen on here for a while.


I fully realise this is a very scathing reply.
But if I read your reasoning correctly Pioneer, that post deserves it.
For the love of ungod please show me where I have mis-read you.

[eoinmac]

IMO homosexuality is not a mental illness. Perhaps homosexuality is nature's birth control? Some say there is an increasing population of gay men and women in today's society, but this could be due to a) more people coming out and b) evolutionary trait (most likely one of those on/off switches protein on a DNA sequence) that has been turned on and passed down genetically. Surely environmental factors can alter these proteins but as well know evolution does not happen overnight. Just a thought..

[Moontanman]

Fear of homosexuals is closer to being a mental illness, for some reason that fear is almost always limited to straight males being afraid of homosexual males.... lesbians are of course hot >:D

[Mr Skeptic]

Like a type of phobia, you mean?

[...]

First, let me say that I am no expert in any related field and don't pretend to be. This is only my uneducated opinion. Additionally, I'm sure this could be said more concisely with a better vocabulary.

Straight men are not afraid of homosexuals. Why would they be? The thing that makes straight men so uncomfortable about homosexuality is the possibility that either they might discover that they themselves are gay or that they might be perceived as being gay, and this is only a problem because homosexuality has developed such a major stigma since the ancient greeks.

Personally, I believe homosexuality has both a genetic and environmental component, and I believe the environmental factor is substantially larger. To keep it simple, I think genetics plays a role in two things. 1) a persons vulnerability to sexual feelings, urges, whatever..the level and ease with which their libido responds to stimulii. and 2) a person's mental functioning that would affect their willingness to experiment..to ignore established societal norms and try new things..--this is a personality trait that goes far beyond sexuality. Now, there are still many very horny and rebellious people out there who never practice homosexuality. Additionally, there are plenty of people with low sex drives and not particularly outgoing who become homosexuals. And lastly there are still more people who experiment with homosexuality only to discover that they're not really homosexuals. So I think genetics set the stage for homosexuality, but environmental circumstances are the trigger and the ultimate determining factor in whether a person actually becomes a permanent, full on homosexual. Maybe a person is exposed to close friends or relatives who live homosexual lifestyles and therefore that person develops a sense that it is more acceptable than someone who was not exposed to it. Maybe a person has a string of bad relationships with the opposite sex and gets bored or attempts to search for a more meaningful alternative. Maybe a woman has a traumatic experience such as a rape or molestation and feels she can no longer trust men but finds understanding and emotional relation with other women, and so lives the gay lifetyle simply to find comfort and emotional fullfilment rather than actual sexual attraction.

My point is that there can be all sorts of reasons a person might 'try' being gay, or actually become gay, or maybe just think they're gay..other than true sexual attraction. Now, admittedly, I say all this as a straight man who simply cannot believe (because I simply can't imagine) that a man can be SOLELY sexually attracted to other males, and not at all attracted to females. I simply don't believe it. I think if a man says that's the case, he must be in denial, or there's a pride issue..something. I don't believe that nature, even with it's occasional abnormalities, would program a member of a sexually reproductive species to instinctively choose the same sex. The same way it would not program an animal to commit suicide. The instinct to procreate must be the strongest after self-preservation. You don't see animals killing themselves for no reason. Only us, with our advanced cognitive function can choose to ignore our basic evolutionary instincts. I'm aware that homosexuality is observed in other animals, but is it really homosexuality? ..or is it something else such as domination.. or are they just really horny. I bet if you take any sexual animal that exhibits homosexual behavior (other than a human) and provide it the opportunity to mate with a suitable member of the opposite sex.. it will.

[Moontanman]

... said:

First, let me say that I am no expert in any related field and don't pretend to be. This is only my uneducated opinion. Additionally, I'm sure this could be said more concisely with a better vocabulary.

Straight men are not afraid of homosexuals. Why would they be? The thing that makes straight men so uncomfortable about homosexuality is the possibility that either they might discover that they themselves are gay or that they might be perceived as being gay, and this is only a problem because homosexuality has developed such a major stigma since the ancient greeks.

Personally, I believe homosexuality has both a genetic and environmental component, and I believe the environmental factor is substantially larger. To keep it simple, I think genetics plays a role in two things. 1) a persons vulnerability to sexual feelings, urges, whatever..the level and ease with which their libido responds to stimulii. and 2) a person's mental functioning that would affect their willingness to experiment..to ignore established societal norms and try new things..--this is a personality trait that goes far beyond sexuality. Now, there are still many very horny and rebellious people out there who never practice homosexuality. Additionally, there are plenty of people with low sex drives and not particularly outgoing who become homosexuals. And lastly there are still more people who experiment with homosexuality only to discover that they're not really homosexuals. So I think genetics set the stage for homosexuality, but environmental circumstances are the trigger and the ultimate determining factor in whether a person actually becomes a permanent, full on homosexual. Maybe a person is exposed to close friends or relatives who live homosexual lifestyles and therefore that person develops a sense that it is more acceptable than someone who was not exposed to it. Maybe a person has a string of bad relationships with the opposite sex and gets bored or attempts to search for a more meaningful alternative. Maybe a woman has a traumatic experience such as a rape or molestation and feels she can no longer trust men but finds understanding and emotional relation with other women, and so lives the gay lifetyle simply to find comfort and emotional fullfilment rather than actual sexual attraction.

My point is that there can be all sorts of reasons a person might 'try' being gay, or actually become gay, or maybe just think they're gay..other than true sexual attraction. Now, admittedly, I say all this as a straight man who simply cannot believe (because I simply can't imagine) that a man can be SOLELY sexually attracted to other males, and not at all attracted to females. I simply don't believe it. I think if a man says that's the case, he must be in denial, or there's a pride issue..something. I don't believe that nature, even with it's occasional abnormalities, would program a member of a sexually reproductive species to instinctively choose the same sex. The same way it would not program an animal to commit suicide. The instinct to procreate must be the strongest after self-preservation. You don't see animals killing themselves for no reason. Only us, with our advanced cognitive function can choose to ignore our basic evolutionary instincts. I'm aware that homosexuality is observed in other animals, but is it really homosexuality? ..or is it something else such as domination.. or are they just really horny. I bet if you take any sexual animal that exhibits homosexual behavior (other than a human) and provide it the opportunity to mate with a suitable member of the opposite sex.. it will.

Maybe you should read this entire thread before you start making grandiose claims about what homosexuality is or is not.

[Genecks]

Try not to dismiss things so easily, Moontanman. Counter statements rather than dismissing them, or if you could, at least say what parts of the statements have been argued for and against in the thread.

Quote

...I say all this as a straight man who simply cannot believe (because I simply can't imagine) that a man can be SOLELY sexually attracted to other males, and not at all attracted to females...

You might have something valid here.

So, because of the psychological experiences that occur, a person would be heterosexual, even if living a homosexual life. And the reason it's impossible to be purely homosexual is due to neurological programming, thus a person has to be attracted to the opposite sex (even if he/she decides in the end to not have sex with the opposite sex). So, perhaps in a better way, you're saying that genetics and neurological development offer people the ability to be sexually attracted to both genders (everyone is born bisexual), but the members of a population will lean toward actions that increase their fitness. And the decision of which gender to mate with will come from experience with early observation of mating rituals and/or the process of which children are born.

Then again, it's not as if we try to get children (at an early age, such as 8) to embrace the idea of sexual activity and giving birth to other children. In some families, this occurs. There tends to be a cultural thing to it, though. It's not really meant to warp the child's mind but to help quickly mature the child for the real world.

Nonetheless, there are homosexuals who will never have had sex with a woman. Assume that many are adults, they could understand the idea that they will not be able to reproduce if they are not with women.

Perhaps calling a homosexual mentally ill would be similar to calling a felon (who continually ends up in prison) mentally ill. Both reduce their ability to reproduce. In this sense, the cause would be sociobiological. If it is truly the unconscious desire of organisms to reproduce, perhaps calling it a mental illness is too subjective.

Something about the biology of the organism has decreased its ability to reproduce. Perhaps a person is less/more susceptible to sociobiological programming than other people. In that case, perhaps the person is not so much mentally ill as the person has genetics that will give him/her less fitness.

I've often been told that homosexual men tend to have bad habits, such as drug abuse and a history of violence. Sure, heterosexuals have such bad habits, too. I'm not sure if this may relate to a deficiency in the frontal lobe, which can be responsible for a person being able to conform and/or mimic aspects of society and conduct physical actions. It could be something that occurs during development. Perhaps it's a plastic effect that occurs while growing up in the living world.

If the biological definition of mental illness were to solely rely on severely decreased ability to reproduce caused by mental/neurological/emotional issues, then I assume these people would be mentally ill.

If this can be reduced to some neurological conformations of the brain, then it should be extremely curious as to why animals have evolved to have such characteristics and what allows such characteristics to occur. Some animals are homosexual and same-gender sex is how reproduction occurs. I'm aware of that.

As a note, I'm not prejudice against homosexual men. I find that their existence frees up more women for men who want them.

This post has been edited by Genecks: 25 June 2010 - 03:43 PM

[Moontanman]

Genecks, this issue has been hashed out over and over in this thread, read the entire thing and then come back and tell me i am dismissing anything.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Mr Skeptic said:

Like a type of phobia, you mean?

Exactly what I mean!

[Genecks]

Definitely the issue has been hashed out throughout the past century and/or more. I was curious if persons would input other abstract ideas that may have not been mentioned or arguments I may not have read or thought of.

I think in general, people are stating it should not be considered a mental illness in reference the reproductive biological design. Furthermore, it could be assumed that biological design is designed to influence bisexual behavior, which sexual behavior is later narrowed by interaction in society, thus leading to sociobiological development.

[Moontanman]

Genecks said:

Definitely the issue has been hashed out throughout the past century and/or more. I was curious if persons would input other abstract ideas that may have not been mentioned or arguments I may not have read or thought of.

I think in general, people are stating it should not be considered a mental illness in reference the reproductive biological design. Furthermore, it could be assumed that biological design is designed to influence bisexual behavior, which sexual behavior is later narrowed by interaction in society, thus leading to sociobiological development.

Genecks, homosexuality has been hashed to death on this forum and in this thread, I honestly see no reason to rehash it unless someone comes up with a new slant on it. Simply making the same old claims does not make them true or add to the discussion.

[...]

moontanman, yes you're right..I probably should have read the entire thread so as not to simply restate something someone had said previously. I usually would have, but I didn't feel like it at the time. As far as I'm concerned this is completely acceptable because 1) I stated at the beginning that the entire entry was my own personal opinion and, as far as I can tell, posts on this forum need not be worthy of a peer-reviewed journal. And 2) if a point of mine had already been made, well then my entry could be considered an affirmation of that point.

I suspect the most likely reason for your retort is not your concern for forum etiquette in general, but that you simply disagreed with my argument in part or whole. Perhaps you should read the first sentence of a post before making accusations of 'grandiose claims'..of which there were none made. I should probably go back and read the arguments you put forth to discover which parts of mine disturb you...but I don't feel like it..

[Moontanman]

... said:

moontanman, yes you're right..I probably should have read the entire thread so as not to simply restate something someone had said previously. I usually would have, but I didn't feel like it at the time. As far as I'm concerned this is completely acceptable because 1) I stated at the beginning that the entire entry was my own personal opinion and, as far as I can tell, posts on this forum need not be worthy of a peer-reviewed journal. And 2) if a point of mine had already been made, well then my entry could be considered an affirmation of that point.

Well then i guess you'd have no problem with me giving you my opinion of your opinion? I won't because opinions mean nothing in this forum and claims must be backed up with evidence other than my opinion.

Quote

I suspect the most likely reason for your retort is not your concern for forum etiquette in general, but that you simply disagreed with my argument in part or whole. Perhaps you should read the first sentence of a post before making accusations of 'grandiose claims'..of which there were none made. I should probably go back and read the arguments you put forth to discover which parts of mine disturb you...but I don't feel like it..

No i simply do not simply disagree with your "opinions" I back up my claims with real evidence, of course you'd have to read the thread to know that, on the other hand I have real world experience with the idea of homosexuality and the problems the false idea of it being a mental disorder or unnatural or wrong and how society deals with an defames people who do not share their majority feelings of sexuality.

I personally do not give a rats ass what your opinions are about homosexuals in general or personally are, all I care about is making sure people who have sexual feelings that are different than the majority are not denied their basic rights as human beings due to people who share your barbaric opinions.

The reason people feel the need to be uncomfortable with homosexuals since the Greeks is due to opinions like yours being supported by pious religious people who feel the need to demonize someone who is different for any reason to make themselves feel better.

[...]

Moontanman said:

Well then i guess you'd have no problem with me giving you my opinion of your opinion? I won't because opinions mean nothing in this forum and claims must be backed up with evidence other than my opinion.



No i simply do not simply disagree with your "opinions" I back up my claims with real evidence, of course you'd have to read the thread to know that, on the other hand I have real world experience with the idea of homosexuality and the problems the false idea of it being a mental disorder or unnatural or wrong and how society deals with an defames people who do not share their majority feelings of sexuality.

I personally do not give a rats ass what your opinions are about homosexuals in general or personally are, all I care about is making sure people who have sexual feelings that are different than the majority are not denied their basic rights as human beings due to people who share your barbaric opinions.

The reason people feel the need to be uncomfortable with homosexuals since the Greeks is due to opinions like yours being supported by pious religious people who feel the need to demonize someone who is different for any reason to make themselves feel better.

moontanman..I can't help but find your responses a little humorous. don't you think you're being a little dramatic.. this thread is about whether homosexuality is a mental illness..and you think MY opinions are barbaric? obviously you do give a rat's ass as evidenced in your word choice. However, I didn't say a single negative thing about homosexuality..only that I don't believe it can be pure. I'm sorry if you are a homosexual or have close ties to homosexuality, and my opinion offends you.

For the record, I would guess that homosexuality should not be defined or classified as a mental illness. I consider it to be nothing more than a personal preference, such as a favorite type of food, or music genre..but these sorts of preferences are environmentally influenced I believe. The existence of homosexuality certainly appears to be to the immediate detriment of our survival..I say immediate because it obviously prevents procreation, but there may be an unknown, long-term benefit such as a population control as someone mentioned earlier. Nature introduces many abnormalities detrimental to reproduction, some beneficial.. They come and go. There's something to be said for the continuing occurrence of homosexuality throughout our evolution..which could be construed as evidence that it is environmentally induced, as natural selection would have compensated for a genetic origin. Again, notwithstanding an unknown, long-term benefit to reproduction. I would be curious to know how common homosexuality was prior to humans coalescing into large groups.