Some diseases are a lie.

[jdurg]

In all honesty, the term "disease" is used for political reasons and that's about it. If you call something a "condition", there will be no funding for research on it or potential treatments for it (pharmaceutical or not). Once something is classified as a disease, governments and people will fund research into said "disease" in an attempt to find a way to "cure" it. Whether it meets the scientific definition of a disease is a moot point. Classifying something as a "disease" just means that it has been regarded as something worthy of research and funding to develop a "cure".

[kolokol1]

skepticlance got me thinking with that whole homosexuality disease thing:

 

Back when it was thought to be a disease, apomorphine was used to treat it. It's a dopamine agonist and works by increasing sexual response in the brain. (an aphrodisiac)

 

But note how it only increases straight libido...

This means that people's minds aren't actually homosexual by nature, it's just something they psychologically created for themselves.

Edited August 15, 2009 by kolokol1

[iNow]

skepticlance got me thinking with that whole homosexuality disease thing:

 

Back when it was thought to be a disease, Apomorphine was used to treat it.

And it's a dopamine agonist which increases libido (and battles ED).

 

But note how it selectively increases straight libido...

That means that people aren't actually homosexual by nature, it's just something they psychologically created for themselves.

 

Erm... No.

 

 

The Real Story on Gay Genes | Sex & Gender | DISCOVER Magazine

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.

 

 

A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation -- Hamer et al. 261 (5119): 321 -- Science

The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.

 

 

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity — Proceedings B

The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first–born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality.

 

 

 

A genetic study of male sexual orientation

Homosexual male probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygotic cotwins, or adoptive brothers were recruited using homophile publications. Sexual orientation of relatives was assessed either by asking relatives directly, or when this was impossible, asking the probands. Of the relatives whose sexual orientation could be rated, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities were substantial under a wide range of assumptions about the population base rate of homosexuality and ascertainment bias

 

 

 

SpringerLink - Journal Article

We examined data from a large cohort of homosexual and heterosexual females and males concerning their siblings' sexual orientations. As in previous studies, both male and female homosexuality were familial. Homosexual females had an excess of homosexual brothers compared to heteroxual subjects, thus providing evidence that similar familial factors influence both male and female homosexuality. Furthermore, despite the large sample size, homosexual females and males did not differ significantly from each other in their proportions of either homosexual sisters or homosexual brothers. Thus, results were most consistent with the possibility that similar familial factors influence male and female sexual orientation.

 

We also examined whether some parental influences comprised shared environmental effects on sexual orientation. Scales attempting to measure such influences failed to distinguish subjects with homosexual siblings from subjects with only heterosexual siblings and, thus, did not appear to measure shared environmental determinants of sexual orientation.

 

 

 

 

Here, too: http://tigger.uic.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf

 

 

 

 

Finally... If you're struggling to understand how a trait like homosexuality is explained in the context of evolution, people can learn more here:

 

Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

[kolokol1]

Those are just studies... it does not deal with the actual principle

 

Also, if homosexuality is not just psychological, how come its not apparent in any animals? Is it a trait unique to humans?

 

I mean maybe bulls or whatever can have gay sex, but only when there aren't any females to have sex with instead.

 

Of course some of it is genetic... like perhaps genes that control how submissive or dominant somebody is or agressive, but not to an extent where homosexuality is certain.

 

I'm not arguing with you I mean I would love to see your counterpoints...

[iNow]

those are just studies... it does not deal with the actual principle

Ah... yeah... that.

 

 

also, if homosexuality is not just a creation of the mind, how come its not apparent in any animals?

Erm... It is.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36687&highlight=kingdom

[kolokol1]

Oh ok I saw your link so 1,500 gay animals have sex with each other I guess that takes my point out the window. I still think that it is mostly psychological though. Then again I guess the 'psychological' part- the way we think- is also really determined by genes. Or is it? I don't know!

 

I think that is what will determine the whole question- Is the way we think determined by nature/nurture? Like say you can't blame a criminal for wanting to kill people because it was his genes and the way he's raised? Or is your mind still independent to make decisions that had not been ultimately controlled by nature/nurture? Idk its an interesting question.

Edited August 15, 2009 by kolokol1

[iNow]

I mean maybe bulls or whatever can have gay sex, but only when there aren't any females to have sex with instead.

 

We have never observed a single animal which has not been seen to engage in homosexual acts, and that is independent of the presence of females. It goes far beyond bulls (at least 1,500 different animals), and if you'd actually try reading the links presented to you, you would know this already.

 

That was your third strike. You're out. Enjoy the night.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

oh ok I saw your link so 1,500 gay animals have sex with each other I guess that takes my point out the window

 

I still think that it is mostly psychological though.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

then again I guess the 'psychological' part- the way we think- is also controlled by genes. idk.

 

Genes don't entirely control the way we think, but they do have a tremendous influence. "The way we think" is a result of our neuroanatomy, which itself is a result of a complex interplay between our genes, our experiences, and our environments.

 

Either way, being homosexual or heterosexual is about much more than just "the way we think." It's about who we are attracted to. People don't "choose" to be straight, and neither do people "chose" to be gay.

 

Interestingly, the brains of heterosexual females are very similar to the brains of homosexual males (but this is about much more than a way of thinking):

 

 

 

Gay Men, Straight Women Have Similar Brains

The brains of straight men and of gay women share certain common features: both are slightly asymmetric, with the right hemisphere larger than the left, say the Swedish researchers.

 

On the other hand, the brains of gay men and straight women are both symmetrical.

 

Similar trends emerged when scientists tracked connectivity in the amygdala, the region of the brain involved in emotional learning and in activating the fight-or-flight response. They noted strong similarities between gay men and straight women, and lesbians and straight men.

 

The findings are published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

"This is a very interesting study demonstrating a possible neurobiological relationship in brain size between gay men and straight women," said Paul Sanberg, distinguished professor of neurosurgery and director of the University of South Florida Center for Aging and Brain Repair in Tampa.

Edited August 15, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[kolokol1]

I guess you're right genes can make a profound effect on brain size, chemistry etc. which can pretty much determine your sexual attractions farther than you can psychologically.

 

Happy? Good night to you also.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As for alcoholics, I think we should give them opiates.

Edited August 15, 2009 by kolokol1
no reason

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That'll really solve their addiction problems.

[bascule]

Dak's statement that this is semantics may be correct. Can anyone give a better definition of 'disease'? I would be inclined to exclude anything without a measurable organic cause. ie. Psychosomatic and other behavioural afflictions perhaps should not be called disease.

 

I think you're conflating disease with infectious disease. Disease is the state of having impaired bodily function, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what the causative agent is. Is black lung a disease or not? Is asbestosis? Neither coal dust nor asbestos are organic, yet the conditions they cause are both classified as diseases.

[kolokol1]

well thing is opiates are as addictive as anything but it has few physical problems- alcohol on the other hand causes liver problems, heart problems, etc.... the only bad thing about opiates is opiate withdrawal.

 

as for that whole homosexuality thing, if it is a brain disorder like iNow suggested, than why don't we use medicines to treat it like we do for other diseases like depression and schizophrenia? dopamine agonists with androgenic agents would do a great job at this.

Edited August 15, 2009 by kolokol1

[iNow]

as for that whole homosexuality thing, if it is a brain disorder like iNow suggested,

I never suggested any such thing. I said it is a different sexual preference which appears to be primarily genetic in origin. You really need to start reading more carefully.

 

 

than why don't we use medicines to treat it like we do for other diseases like depression and schizophrenia?

Because homosexuality is most certainly NOT a disease. Your comment is like saying that being black is a disease, or that having red hair is a disease, and it is very inappropriate, and demonstrates a profound ignorance on the topic.

 

It's a different sexual preference, that's all. If you like chocolate, and I like vanilla, are you going to suggest that I have a disease which needs medicine? That's really disturbing when you think about, but that's precisely what you're implying with your comments.

[kolokol1]

huntington's disease is genetic, does that mean it's not a disease? if you have a significant impairment (like homosexuality) that can be treated with medicine, why not allow it to be?

 

it's about choice. you have to give homosexuals the option to be treated if they want to. what about men who were straight all their lives starting to get gay urges? shouldn't they have the choice to get treated? nobody is making you get treated if you don't want to.

Edited August 15, 2009 by kolokol1

[iNow]

ok. you're right. i like chocolate, you like vanilla. and you like men сumming in your aѕѕ.

Actually, no. I am a heterosexual male, but that's completely irrelevant, and your comment betrays your bigotry and hatred on this subject.

 

I simply fight for accuracy and truth, and I look to protect people from unwarranted ignorance. Your comments consistently have a blaring lack of both accuracy and truth, and an oversupply of ignorance.

 

 

To reiterate, homosexuality should not be treated with medicine because it is not a disease, and it is not a disorder. It's just a sexual preference different from yours... a preference which causes no harm to anybody. Look inside yourself and ask if you'd appreciate people making such comments about you, and suggesting that you needed electroshock therapy or medicine for something you prefer... something which is perfectly natural and which causes no harm to you or to others.

 

Think about why you are so hateful toward a group which has caused you no harm. Think about why you wish to change through medicine the preferences of a group which have no impact on you, your friends, or your family. Think about why you think it's okay to to seek to use medicines to change someones natural preferences, and ask yourself if you're being a good person, and if you have any good reason to feel the way you do about a group that simply has a different sexual preference from you.

 

I'll give you a hint... There are no good reasons for those things, and it's time for you to grow up and realize that your comments are hateful and you should stop making them.

[kolokol1]

i don't hate gays. i tolerate them. but it's just i think that a man who is gay is a disgrace to his own self. explanation follows.

 

<<adult material removed by moderator>>

 

you probably did not even care to read all that inow. and you're probably going to say something like "reality really doesn't give a crap about your mistaken explanations". oh well. i just thought i should give one anyways.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Pangloss
adult material removed

[the tree]

i don't hate. but i don't accept gays. because you see its not about acceptance. its about tolerance. i tolerate gay people.

No, it's about acceptance. To say that you 'tolerate' someone basically means that you're not going to vocalise your dickishness.

 

[i'm not gay]

Well so the hell what? Just because you're not into something doesn't mean other people aren't. I'm sure you have all your own kinks or whatever would be a deal breaker to other heterosexual guys, sexuality is a pretty personal thing and your not going to find anyone who matches yours exactly.

 

also i've been meaning to ask a gay person such as yourself... are you the pitcher or the catcher?

People's favourite positions are hardly a defining factor in their sexual preference - it's also a pretty damn personal question. I'd avoid asking that in public.

 

because if you're the pitcher how can you possibly not rather pitch to a girl?

Gay men like men because gay men are gay. It's not complicated.

 

as for catchers i think they just like to be the ones being fuсked.

If you still have the childish outlook that there is ever anyone doing the sex and another person having it done to them then believe me - you're doing it wrong.

 

i hope this clears it up. good day.

Clears what up? At best it exposes a lot of ignorance and that you've simply never sat down and actually thought about the subject.

[iNow]

it's about choice. you have to give homosexuals the option to be treated if they want to. what about men who were straight all their lives starting to get gay urges?

People don't "turn gay."

 

 

shouldn't they have the choice to get treated? nobody is making you get treated if you don't want to.

 

Well, you continue to suggest that treatment is possible, as if a black man should have the "choice" to be treated if he wants to be a white man. It's silly, and has been demonstrated ineffective, and even harmful.

 

If you truly wish to better educate yourself, then keep reading. I've provided some information above. Here is more, this one specifically discussing the ineffectiveness of trying to convert people with a preference for same sex partners into a person with a preference for opposite sex partners. It simply doesn't work.

 

 

Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation

The task force conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that

efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful

and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.

 

Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation.

 

Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.

 

 

 

Even the American Psychological Association Says that Ex-Gay Therapy Causes Harm

Ex-gay therapy has been roundly condemned by rights-based organizations and activists for decades as nothing more than a sham psychological practice that can have indefinite and considerable consequences on those that are forced to go through it. Now the American Psychological Association (APA) is on the record with their agreement.

 

Meeting in Toronto this week, the APA released a report that said ex-gay therapy is harmful, and that there's no credible scientific evidence to suggest that people can change their sexual orientation, regardless of what organizations like Exodus International or Love Won Out think.

 

 

 

 

Psychologists association: Therapists shouldn't tell gay clients they can become straight

The American Psychological Association has declared that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients that they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

 

Instead, the APA is urging therapists to consider multiple options — that could range from celibacy to switching churches — for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

 

In a resolution adopted by the APA's governing council and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the association puts itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

 

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

 

 

 

 

Truth Wins Out - Commentary: The APA Says "No Evidence" In Support of Ex-Gay Therapy

It was encouraging to see the APA question the ex-gay tactic of teaching vulnerable clients to live in a fantasy world. Groups like Exodus and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), regularly encourage clients to say they have converted, even though they are still gay. The idea is that by proclaiming a false heterosexual identity in advance of any legitimate change, the desired transformation will eventually come.

 

This idea is equivalent to me wanting to play professional basketball, so I begin to identify as a member of the New York Knicks. Never mind that I am too short, too old and not good enough to make the roster. If I embrace this surreal existence long enough, I will one-day be dunking the ball under the bright lights of Madison Square Garden.

 

It is imperative that clients are honest about who they are and not prodded to make claims that are not true. Such a gap between fantasy and reality, according to the APA report, can create “cognitive dissonance” and does not resolve “identity conflicts.”

[kolokol1]

well say if a white person was extremely uncomfortable with being white, why shouldn't he take some melonotan or whatever hormone to try to pigment his skin black?

 

Well so the hell what? Just because you're not into something doesn't mean other people aren't. I'm sure you have all your own kinks or whatever would be a deal breaker to other heterosexual guys, sexuality is a pretty personal thing and your not going to find anyone who matches yours exactly.

 

tree you're taking quotes out of nowhere. in no edit did i say "[i'm not gay]" or imply it (i suppose that's what the brackets are for). you're using unfair tactics to winning an argument.

inow i wasn't talking about therapy. i was talking about medications. i even provided you with example medications that already exist, such as selective dopamine agonists.

Edited August 15, 2009 by kolokol1

[the tree]

Yes paraphrasing is indicated with square brackets.

 

And really, that section of your post could be interpreted at "waaah waaah semen scares me" or "I can't imagine being attracted to men". The latter merely states that you are not gay, the former merely states that your a complete wuss. I went for reading that cast you in a more favourable light. If you want to keep your sexuality private and stick with the wuss option, that's fine with me.

[kolokol1]

i'm not scared of it you idiot it's just i don't want to get any of it on me. i don't know why. the exact same way i can't touch my nipples. i mean i can but i don't want to. something in the brain. like that dopamine you get from about to eat something or do something interesting, its the opposite of that. i just really don't want to. and not because its gay or anything. nobody is watching. no it's something deeper down than that. the way our brains are hard-wired.

 

you see its about choice. gay people should have the choice to be normal.

Edited August 16, 2009 by kolokol1

[bascule]

well thing is opiates are as addictive as anything but it has few physical problems

 

Incorrect. Opiates are a central nervous system depressant. Take too many and you will die. Mixing opiates with other depressants like alcohol will also increase risk of death. They're also highly addictive and require larger and larger doses due to tolerance developed because of compulsive use, thus increasing the risk of overdose.

 

Opiates also induce nausea and vomiting, which is exacerbated by the intense drowsiness they cause. This places a user at risk of dying because they choke on their own vomit, even if they didn't overdose, simply by passing out in a position where you're lying on your back.

 

Many people have died because of them.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You know, it is possible to have mature conversations about this topic without discussing crap like whether you can touch your own nipples. If you want to talk about homosexuality, be mature about it. Otherwise, this discussion will be closed.

[kolokol1]

in any case i've spent too much time talking with you guys. here's a study i found for you guys about this and i'm out of here.

 

really i only made this account to ask that 'curiosity' question, something i did not expect to get any responses i just wanted to write it down somewhere (feel free to delete it, i'm over it).

Edited August 16, 2009 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

All that work just to post a link to a shock site. Sad.

 

I think that's enough for this thread.

[mooeypoo]

i'm not scared of it you idiot it's just i don't want to get any of it on me. i don't know why. the exact same way i can't touch my nipples. i mean i can but i don't want to. something in the brain. like that dopamine you get from about to eat something or do something interesting, its the opposite of that. i just really don't want to. and not because its gay or anything. nobody is watching. no it's something deeper down than that. the way our brains are hard-wired.

 

you see its about choice. gay people should have the choice to be normal.

Regardless of what you think or not think of any kind of subject, I would recommend you take a step back and watch how you speak to others.

 

Whether or not people here will accept your opinion is one thing (this *is* a debate forum, and opinions - from all sorts and types - are welcome, whether people like them or not) but it's quite another how you answer others.

 

It is part of our rules of conduct that you do not engage in bad language and personal attacks. Please avoid doing that, so we can have a civil debate and relate to the content of what you're claiming rather than the general tone.

 

Quite simply, let me put it this way: If you want respect from others, you need to give it to them. This is a good advice in general, not just for this forum, but it also happens to be in our rules.

 

~moo