Is homosexuality a mental illness?

[Genecks]

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

 

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

 

What does it mean to have a mental illness?

Is it better defined as a mental abnormality?

 

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

 

So, in that sense, I could say it's a mental illness.

It seems absolutely reasonable to me.

 

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

 

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

Edited May 5, 2010 by Genecks

[iNow]

Is homosexuality a mental illness?

No

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

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

 

<...>

 

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

 

<...>

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[pink_trike]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=260762&postcount=55

[StringJunky]

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited May 5, 2010 by StringJunky

[iNow]

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

[ecoli]

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

 

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

[Mr Skeptic]

Is homosexuality a mental illness?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[iNow]

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

 

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

[pink_trike]

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

 

So, in that sense, I could say it's a mental illness.

It seems absolutely reasonable to me.

 

 

Some questions for you to consider:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Are people who use birth control mentally ill?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Are bisexual people mentally ill?

 

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

 

Is there a difference between desire and behavior?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Is sexual desire a mental function?

 

Is sexual desire a physical function?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited May 6, 2010 by pink_trike

[Double K]

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

 

There is a difference between desire and behaviour - the answer is choice.

All of the points you made come down to choice.

 

I personally don't believe it is a "choice". I used to think it was, but after lengthy discussions with gay people (for the record I myself am not)

but to them it was a desire. Something deep seeded, something that they felt and not something that they chose.

Now of course performing the act (behaviour) is a choice to some degree.

However the initial attraction was not.

 

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

 

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

[iNow]

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

This is false.

 

there are no recorded incidences of primates performing homosexual acts

This is also false.

 

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

False again.

[Double K]

This is false.

source?

 

This is also false.

source?

 

False again.

source?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour

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

[iNow]

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

[Double K]

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

 

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

 

I assume you are referring to the purpose of the cerebral limbic system and specifically the Amygdala. There are several other structures linking reciporically to the limbic system also, but I think Amygdala is the one responsible for 'processing' emotion no?

Unfortunately neuroscience analyses the how of the emotional response, not the why - and in my opinion the why is the key to that argument.

 

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

 

"However, concerning the emotions, in particular how such human emotions function, we are almost carried into the realms of supposition."

http://www.matsuishi-lab.org/limbicsystemJ_E(final).htm

[StringJunky]

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Homosexual_behaviour

Edited May 6, 2010 by StringJunky

[Double K]

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Homosexual_behaviour

 

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

 

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

'try-sexual'

 

(from the same link as above)

 

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

 

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

[pink_trike]

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

 

There is a difference between desire and behaviour - the answer is choice.

All of the points you made come down to choice.

 

I personally don't believe it is a "choice". I used to think it was, but after lengthy discussions with gay people (for the record I myself am not)

but to them it was a desire. Something deep seeded, something that they felt and not something that they chose.

Now of course performing the act (behaviour) is a choice to some degree.

However the initial attraction was not.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Behavior is choice. Desire isn't choice.

 

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

[Double K]

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

 

Pyschology I do believe works wonders.

 

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

It has been my observation in many cases that psychiatrists tend to prescribe drugs as a matter of course, rather than actually address the deep underlying issues that cause the depression - I believe in holistic treatments (which pyschology addresses) and I do not believe psychiatry tackles the problem from an holistic angle. Perhaps it wasn't always this way but I have

seen many friends whom suffered long at the hands of phsychiatry on several different forms of medications and eventually moved off them (and went to psychologists) and then improved.

[pink_trike]

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

 

Pyschology I do believe works wonders.

 

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

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Imo, psychiatry is dangerous and borders on the criminal.

[ewmon]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[StringJunky]

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.

Edited May 6, 2010 by StringJunky

[pink_trike]

 

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]

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.

 

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.

 

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.