Is homosexuality a mental illness?

[Moontanman]

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

 

 

I'll give mine as well.

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

Edited July 30, 2010 by Moontanman

[pink_trike]

 

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

 

 

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

[ewmon]

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

Yes, this is called heterosexuality.

 

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

 

Conception and Birth Sex Ratios

More Gays than Lesbians

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

All human reproduction is heterosexuality. Let's review:

hetero- = different

homo- = same

sperm + egg = different = heterosexuality = reproduction.

sperm + sperm or egg + egg = same = homosexuality = nothing.

 

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

[pink_trike]

Yes, this is called heterosexuality.

 

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

 

Behavior isn't the definition of orientation.

 

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

 

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

 

 

All human reproduction is heterosexuality. Let's review:

hetero- = different

homo- = same

sperm + egg = different = heterosexuality = reproduction.

sperm + sperm or egg + egg = same = homosexuality = nothing.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

homo + homo = homo/homo breeding = reproduction.

 

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

Edited May 7, 2010 by pink_trike

[StringJunky]

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

 

.

 

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

 

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

Edited May 7, 2010 by StringJunky

[Sayonara]

Yes, this is called heterosexuality.

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

 

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

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

[ewmon]

Behavior isn’t the definition of orientation.

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

There is nothing innately “heterosexual” about reproduction.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

homo + homo = homo/homo breeding = reproduction.

You’re describing a bisexual man.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

[Sayonara]

You’re describing a bisexual man.

...

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

 

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

 

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

[pink_trike]

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

 

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

 

...or' date=' since I’ve also had intercourse with lesbian women...

 

homo + homo = homo/homo breeding = reproduction.

[/quote']

 

You’re describing a bisexual man.

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

 

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

Edited May 7, 2010 by pink_trike

[ewmon]

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

 

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

[Moontanman]

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

 

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

[pink_trike]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[ewmon]

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

[Sayonara]

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

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

[Moontanman]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[pink_trike]

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.

Edited May 9, 2010 by pink_trike

[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.

[Sayonara]

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

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.

Edited May 9, 2010 by pink_trike
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).

[Sayonara]

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

 

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:

Well' date=' 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.[/quote']

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.

Edited May 9, 2010 by pioneer

[Sayonara]

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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