Homosexuality a mental disorder

[Black Dog]

A lot of the pseudo-scientific chatter about homosexuality as a disorder brings to mind past attempts to find a scientific basis for rascist policies. Once you deem someone defective on the basis of inborn traits, you start down a road that has lead to some very dark places. IOW what difference does it make if homosexuality is caused by a genetic quirk or not? I have big problems with deeming any non health or life threataning trait as a "defect".

My credibility is 'heterosexual' credibility' and traditional values.

IOW you're talking out of your ass.

"THE AGENDA describes how homosexual activists plan on recruiting your children into the lifestyle; how they’re undermining traditional marriage; and how they will eventually criminalize any public criticism of homosexual conduct. (It’s already happening in Canada where the gay agenda is well advanced.)"

Change "homosexuals" to "darkies" and this reads like a Klan leaflet.

[gc1765]

You raise an interesting point. If someone is blind because of an inherited trait we have no problem calling the blindness a genetic 'defect' and everyone understands that we are not judging the blind person by saying they have a 'defect'. OTH, suggesting that a hypothetical homosexual gene is a genetic defect will lead to condemnation.

This may be true, however the same could be said about hair colour, eye colour or skin colour. You could just as easily say that light coloured hair/eyes/skin is a genetic 'defect', though I've never heard that term used to describe those characteristics.

I was serious, by the way, about the autism thing. I think all three conditions indicate a subtle form of brain damage...

There is no brain damage involved in homosexuality, why would you even suggest such a thing?

...that may or may not be treatable by gene therapy at some point in the future. If the therapy occurs in utero I don't know that homosexual activists would be able to stop it, without foregoing the current view that an embryo is just a clump of tissue subject to it's mother's wishes, and not a human being. On the other hand, if the therapy occurs post-pubescence I don't see how it's anything other than individual choice, which again is hard to argue against.

If that is the case then it would be the mother's decision, just as with abortion, as a fetus can not decide for itself. Once it is old enough, that would be the individual's decision. It would not be a decision made by the government as many pro-lifers would argue in the case of abortion. I see no problem with that.

[BHS]

There is no brain damage involved in homosexuality, why would you even suggest such a thing?

It's a hyposthesis. The procreative drive is a function of brain activity. I believe that it is hardwired into the brain during fetal development. From a biological standpoint, the procreative drive is intended to produce offspring. When the procreative drive is hardwired in such a way that offspring cannot possibly occur there has been an unintended variation, like being born with an extra finger. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the difference or that it's necessarily something that needs to be fixed, but that like autism it is a form of brain damage.

If that is the case then it would be the mother's decision, just as with abortion, as a fetus can not decide for itself. Once it is old enough, that would be the individual's decision. It would not be a decision made by the government as many pro-lifers would argue in the case of abortion. I see no problem with that.

Which is pretty much what I said.

[Shady]

It's a hyposthesis. The procreative drive is a function of brain activity. I believe that it is hardwired into the brain during fetal development. From a biological standpoint, the procreative drive is intended to produce offspring. When the procreative drive is hardwired in such a way that offspring cannot possibly occur there has been an unintended variation, like being born with an extra finger. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the difference or that it's necessarily something that needs to be fixed, but that like autism it is a form of brain damage.

Perfectly stated.

That being said. What will happen when science/medicine is capable of correcting such variations and defects? I'd like to hear everyone's opinion.

[gc1765]

It's a hyposthesis. The procreative drive is a function of brain activity. I believe that it is hardwired into the brain during fetal development. From a biological standpoint, the procreative drive is intended to produce offspring. When the procreative drive is hardwired in such a way that offspring cannot possibly occur there has been an unintended variation, like being born with an extra finger. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the difference or that it's necessarily something that needs to be fixed, but that like autism it is a form of brain damage.

No, there is no brain damage involved in homosexuality. You could just as easily say that humans love of chocolate is hardwired into our brain. There is no reason to believe that homosexuals are any more brain damaged than people who do not like chocolate. It is not 'damaged', just different. Do you believe people who don't like chocolate to be brain damaged?

That being said. What will happen when science/medicine is capable of correcting such variations and defects? I'd like to hear everyone's opinion.

My opinion is stated in my previous post, it is the choice of the mother/individual.

[Liam]

That being said. What will happen when science/medicine is capable of correcting such variations and defects? I'd like to hear everyone's opinion.

My orientation is a variation, not a defect, thank you very much.

First, I don't think this kind of "therapy" will ever be available. Pharmaceutical companies are busy looking for disease-ending drugs and for profits and there simply will never be enough of a public outcry for this kind of "cure". Also, there probably aren't enough people whose shame of having a gay child would create a vast market for this -- particularly as decades go by and being gay becomes less of an issue each decade.

That said, I think theoretical orientation reassignment poses a number of ethical and moral issues and is something I could never do to either of my kids if such an option was available to me. Like someone with a child born with both make and female parts who selects one gender over the other without any indication from the child as to which is the right one, I would be haunted by the thought that I did something to possibly point my child down the unhappier of two paths. Knowing that being gay is part of the natural order of things, I would look in her eye for the rest of my life and think, do you hate me for what I did to you? what kind of person would you be if I just let you be the kid God gave me?

I think nature (God, Mother Nature, whomever) has a way of readjusting to account for the things man tries to "correct". There is a theory that gayness is a condition that partly arose to stem overpopulation by certain species. I think if man develops a way to tinker with the natural order of things, that the natural order will shift paradigms slightly and we'll find ourselves with an entirely different magnitude of problems.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

From a biological standpoint, the procreative drive is intended to produce offspring. When the procreative drive is hardwired in such a way that offspring cannot possibly occur there has been an unintended variation, like being born with an extra finger. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the difference or that it's necessarily something that needs to be fixed

'Procreative drive' and sexual drive are two different things. The church tried to demand that they be inextricably linked, but the majority of people would not like to have kids every time they have sex. What of oral and anal sex? Some prefer it, some don't. Would you suggest that I have brain damage because I like getting blown?

It could be said that Homosexuality is a product of human advancement. When we no longer had to gear all of our activities to basic survival, we had more options. One thing that was created was 'leisure time', and sex for pleasure, rather than survival.

Edited June 22, 2006 by theloniusfleabag

[sharkman]

Dear BHS,

From a biological standpoint, the procreative drive is intended to produce offspring. When the procreative drive is hardwired in such a way that offspring cannot possibly occur there has been an unintended variation, like being born with an extra finger. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the difference or that it's necessarily something that needs to be fixed

'Procreative drive' and sexual drive are two different things. The church tried to demand that they be inextricably linked, but the majority of people would not like to have kids every time they have sex. What of oral and anal sex? Some prefer it, some don't. Would you suggest that I have brain damage because I like it when my wife goes down on me?

It could be said that Homosexuality is a product of human advancement. When we no longer had to gear all of our activities to basic survival, we had more options. One thing that was created was 'leisure time', and sex for pleasure, rather than survival.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but nobody bats a 1000 in the ol' making babies department. Oral and anal are for people who get bored with regular sex, which begs the question just how much sex are you getting that you'd get bored with it and need new orifices?

If Homo sex is the product of human advancement, then how come it was around in Roman times. Cause rumor has it they weren't so advanced back then, hmm?

[Leafless]

A lot of the pseudo-scientific chatter about homosexuality as a disorder brings to mind past attempts to find a scientific basis for rascist policies. Once you deem someone defective on the basis of inborn traits, you start down a road that has lead to some very dark places. IOW what difference does it make if homosexuality is caused by a genetic quirk or not? I have big problems with deeming any non health or life threataning trait as a "defect".

My credibility is 'heterosexual' credibility' and traditional values.

IOW you're talking out of your ass.

"THE AGENDA describes how homosexual activists plan on recruiting your children into the lifestyle; how they’re undermining traditional marriage; and how they will eventually criminalize any public criticism of homosexual conduct. (It’s already happening in Canada where the gay agenda is well advanced.)"

Change "homosexuals" to "darkies" and this reads like a Klan leaflet.

Racist policies???

I didn't know homosexuals were a RACE.

Read it as it is and that is "mental defect" not "defect".

Do you have a link to prove your not talking out of your ass? Sure sounds like it.

Change "homosexuals" to "darkies" and this reads like a Klan leaflet. Well I suppose if we go changing words to suit our agenda we would be able to have anything read anything.

Brilliant BD, brilliant.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear sharkman,

If Homo sex is the product of human advancement, then how come it was around in Roman times. Cause rumor has it they weren't so advanced back then, hmm?

Actually, I was referring to 'human advancement' over the other species. After we rose above the chain of 'eat or be eaten'.

Oral and anal are for people who get bored with regular sex,

I disagree. Not everyone will like everything.

A very good 'gay' friend of mine told me he did have sex with a woman, and didn't care for it. He found himself attracted to a another man, they had sex, and that is what he preferred.

Even though I often teased him about his 'sexual preference' (he had a tremendous sense of humour), we became very good friends. We shared a love for fishing, billiards, music and the occasional practical joke, but not homosexual sex. Which was fine by both of us, because we both felt that what either of us did, consentually and in the privacy of our own bedrooms, was none of the other person's business.

[MasteroftheGods]

Homosexuality might not be a mental disorder, but one cannot argue that homosexuality is a type of physiological error in a human being. It's a natural error, but an error nonetheless.

You raise an interesting point. If someone is blind because of an inherited trait we have no problem calling the blindness a genetic 'defect' and everyone understands that we are not judging the blind person by saying they have a 'defect'. OTH, suggesting that a hypothetical homosexual gene is a genetic defect will lead to condemnation.

Homosexuality might not be a mental disorder, but one cannot argue that homosexuality is a type of physiological error in a human being. It's a natural error, but an error nonetheless.

You raise an interesting point. If someone is blind because of an inherited trait we have no problem calling the blindness a genetic 'defect' and everyone understands that we are not judging the blind person by saying they have a 'defect'. OTH, suggesting that a hypothetical homosexual gene is a genetic defect will lead to condemnation.

If homo sexuality were a genetic disorder, don't you think that it would have been bread out of the genpool by now? Not a lot of "gays" are able to have children (duh). Thus according to Darwin's theory you would think homosexuality would no longer exist.

But it does.

So this means that homosexuality muct come from somewhere other then gentics.

I am suggesting that it is not an act of god, or of genetics, but an imbalance of testoserone while the child is in the womb, and most suseptable to "mental disorders". It could be caused by the mothers diet, stress, activities there really is no way to know for sure.

anyway...

This morning I heard a conservative in my poliSci class, refer to gays as un-natural and needed to be saved.

That's just plain untrue.

Truth be told Homo sexuality is extremely natural, it is acctualy one of the most naturally occoring phenomina within in human species. It is found (and surpringly common) in every species of mamals on earth as well as some reptiles.

From this we can deduce that Homo sexuality is at least as old as the first mammals, or roughly 100 million years old.

I think that is a little older (and more supported) then some book which has been writen and rewriten so many times there is scarcely a shread of truth left in it, yet for some reason this book is the more valued text, That dosen't make sense.

I have yet to hear one vaild arugument as to why "gays" should be treated as people in need of help by the "normals". Society defines what is normal and if we wish to make homo sexuality devient it will be treated as such.

But to say it is un-natural or evil is just plain nonsence, as there is absolutly no solid eviedence to support this claim.

I offered concrete eveidence of the naturality of Homo sexualism, now will someone PLEASE give me an argument to the contrary with equal or greater concrete scientific facts.

[Riverwind]

If homo sexuality were a genetic disorder, don't you think that it would have been bread out of the genpool by now? Not a lot of "gays" are able to have children (duh). Thus according to Darwin's theory you would think homosexuality would no longer exist.

Genetics is a complicated business - there are many genetic diseases that you would think should have been bred out of the population by now. Cystic Fibrosis is a good example. Turns out the genes that cause Cystic Fibrosis are essential to our immune system so it is impossible to bred it out of population. Research into the genetic links to homsexuality also suspect a similar coorelation between the 'homosexual' gene and one or more genes necessary to survive.

So this means that homosexuality muct come from somewhere other then gentics.

There are probably environmental factors such as exposure to certain hormones in the womb. We know, for example, that the chances of a woman producing a gay child goes up each time her womb is used to produce a boy.

[M.Dancer]

How about we consider homophobia to be a mental disorder?

I think phobia already is....

[JerrySeinfeld]

I think we should all relax and accept the findings - heck even gays call themselves "queer"

[M.Dancer]

If homo sexuality were a genetic disorder, don't you think that it would have been bread out of the genpool by now? Not a lot of "gays" are able to have children (duh). Thus according to Darwin's theory you would think homosexuality would no longer exist.

But it does.

So this means that homosexuality muct come from somewhere other then gentics.

Actually gays have tons of children....millions of them every year.....you and many others assume that a homnosexual exchews completely the other sex....and by your post, you seem to think that's the way it has always been.

Not so.

In the past, for gay men they got married did their duty and their wives had kids like everyone else. The difference between them and me is....they really didn't have the "Oh My God! You are so fusckering Amazing, Oh My God Oh My God shhhhhh, (the kids might hear) OH MY GOD...monkey sex that most men and women have. If the gay man was self actualized or self aware, he might understand that he was attracted to other men....maybe even sexually attracted..and he might even found release.......

And of course gay women were having same experiances. They might love their husbands (platonicly?) and their children but again, they might not have even understood their own feelings.....

It should be noted that Oscar Wilde was a devoted father......

And today even, in the news the former govenor of New Jersey James McGreevey was married and a father of 2......

So in other words.....

So this means that homosexuality muct come from somewhere other then gentics.

no......

[geoffrey]

That's why we should support gay marriage, they are far less likely to pass on genetic code and gay's will be a historical notation in a few generations.

Maybe the left has it right, maybe this has just been a big eugenics program all along.

[Liam]

Actually gays have tons of children....millions of them every year.....you and many others assume that a homnosexual exchews completely the other sex....and by your post, you seem to think that's the way it has always been.

Not so.

I'm gay and have two kids (biological). I was lucky enough to have once been married to my best friend (a woman). We had two kids together.

[M.Dancer]

Actually gays have tons of children....millions of them every year.....you and many others assume that a homnosexual exchews completely the other sex....and by your post, you seem to think that's the way it has always been.

Not so.

I'm gay and have two kids (biological). I was lucky enough to have once been married to my best friend (a woman). We had two kids together.

I'm straight and have had sex with a gay woman.....I might be the reason why she doesn't have sex with men anymore.........but she once had her.....experimental side.....

Over the years I have met women and men who came out in their 40s after being married and divorced.....women who had carnal knowledge with turkey basters.....and the experimental type.....

[gc1765]

If homo sexuality were a genetic disorder, don't you think that it would have been bread out of the genpool by now? Not a lot of "gays" are able to have children (duh). Thus according to Darwin's theory you would think homosexuality would no longer exist.

But it does.

So this means that homosexuality muct come from somewhere other then gentics.

Genes for homosexuality won't necessarily be bred out of the genepool, because sexual gratification (whether it be to a member of the same sex or opposite sex) is selected for through evolution. The best way to think of this is to look at masturbation. It's pretty obvious that masturbation does not lead to children. In fact, it uses up sperm which could be used to produce a child and satisfies us so that we will be less likely to have sex and produce children, yet I think it's pretty safe to say that it's quite common This is because the underlying motivation, sexual gratification, is the same for opposite-sex couples, masturbation and same-sex couples.

The other possibility is that homosexuality is a recessive trait. That means that two heterosexual parents can still have a homosexual child.

Riverwind's example of cystic fibrosis is another example. Except that the genes which cause cystic fibrosis are a mutation of genes that are important for survival. Theoretically, those mutations could be bred out of the genepool, but cystic fibrosis is a recessive disease so that won't necessarily happen. In fact, most genetic diseases are recessive.

Cancer is another example. You would think that it would have bred out of the genepool as well, but cell replication is essential survival, so it's easier said than done. There's probably a lot of other good examples as well...

EDIT: Actually, sickle-cell anemia is a very good example. Sickle-cell anemia is a recessive genetic disease, caused by mutation in the genes coding for hemoglobin. A heterozygous (one normal gene and one defective gene) person will be healthy, but will also be resistant to malaria. Therefore, this mutated gene will not be bred out of the genepool and will actually be selected for (to some extent, but not to the extent that more people will get sickle-cell anemia). Link

Also, there is probably more than one gene which determines homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, complicating things even further.

[MasteroftheGods]

If homo sexuality were a genetic disorder, don't you think that it would have been bread out of the genpool by now? Not a lot of "gays" are able to have children (duh). Thus according to Darwin's theory you would think homosexuality would no longer exist.

But it does.

So this means that homosexuality muct come from somewhere other then gentics.

Actually gays have tons of children....millions of them every year.....you and many others assume that a homnosexual exchews completely the other sex....and by your post, you seem to think that's the way it has always been.

Not so.

In the past, for gay men they got married did their duty and their wives had kids like everyone else. The difference between them and me is....they really didn't have the "Oh My God! You are so fusckering Amazing, Oh My God Oh My God shhhhhh, (the kids might hear) OH MY GOD...monkey sex that most men and women have. If the gay man was self actualized or self aware, he might understand that he was attracted to other men....maybe even sexually attracted..and he might even found release.......

And of course gay women were having same experiances. They might love their husbands (platonicly?) and their children but again, they might not have even understood their own feelings.....

My stance is still the same, I will not deny that gays in the past and present, have married the opposite sex for social and procreation reasons, but again marrige is a social construction. What I am suggesting is that the homosexual "gene" if there ever was such a thing then it would no longer exist as it probalbly would not have surrvied even before the human evolved.

For example, austrolopithicus was an acient ancestor of humans with little more intelegence then a common chimp. Chimps in captivity and vertiually all other mamals that are born homosexual tend consentrate only on the sex of their desired intrest and ingnore the opposite sex. It has been very rare, if at all, to see sex between a homosexual mamals have sex with the opposite sex, makeing procreation from difficult to impossible.

Which leads me to believe that although I will not deny that homosexuality technically"could" be a ressive gene, but I find it rather hard to believe that something that rare could find itself so pominant in our society and the natural world.

Furthermore, Recently I assissed my psychology proffessor in a recreation of an experiment in the text book for some extra credit, he experimented with high amounts of testosterone in unborn rats.

The result was truly facinating, the male rats were found to be overly sexual (though I personally didn't notice a difference, as they were rats). But the female rats exibited a strange behavior, they tried to mount one another. So it they truly were turned into "gays" then it proves at least on some level that womb enviroments have a significant effect on sexual orientaion. So it would seem that his finding support my preivous conclusion.

I was already aware of the sickle cell aneima and its ablity to fight off malaria, but that however is different in that it increases the odds a certain genes surrival, Homosexualiaty does not (as least visably) assits in the orginsm gene in surrival.

In lower life forms the only drive there is to reproduce is that of the drive for sex, so if the drive for sex indicates a path which leads to nonreproduction then that is what the organism does.

Humans however as you all have mentioned have addapted for this cultually and socially, so gays can have children (your right I did not state this and I should have). For example marrying the opposite sex for, emotional reasons or for reasons other then sexual gratification as has been mentioned and is prominate in our society.

But in other mamals there is no need for emotional attachment or for establishing social position, If animals only have this sexual drive to promote there genes as is the case, and they do not have societies (at least not ones as complicated as our) which provide norms, such as rasies families, then genticly there can be little ro no conection between genes and sexual orentation. As the gene would not have surrvied eariler mamals, and would have bred itself out before ever entering the hunan genepool.

I mean no offence by anything written here, and if I have offened anyone I appolgise, though I would still like a respone so as we can contniue this debate.

P.S. What no one mentioned about the sickle cell aneima disorder is that it is virtually unheard of anywhere outside of malaria prominant areas, so in other populations it did largly breed itself out.

[gc1765]

Which leads me to believe that although I will not deny that homosexuality technically"could" be a ressive gene, but I find it rather hard to believe that something that rare could find itself so pominant in our society and the natural world.

What about my masturbation analogy? How do you explain something as prominent as masturbation?

Furthermore, Recently I assissed my psychology proffessor in a recreation of an experiment in the text book for some extra credit, he experimented with high amounts of testosterone in unborn rats.

The result was truly facinating, the male rats were found to be overly sexual (though I personally didn't notice a difference, as they were rats). But the female rats exibited a strange behavior, they tried to mount one another. So it they truly were turned into "gays" then it proves at least on some level that womb enviroments have a significant effect on sexual orientaion. So it would seem that his finding support my preivous conclusion.

The level of testosterone might not have as much to do with environment as it does with genetics. The level of testosterone produced is controlled by genes. Genes that lead to more or less testosterone production could be one possible cause. Testosterone has many other effects in humans, so having more or less of it may provide some other advantage.

I was already aware of the sickle cell aneima and its ablity to fight off malaria, but that however is different in that it increases the odds a certain genes surrival, Homosexualiaty does not (as least visably) assits in the orginsm gene in surrival.

The point is we don't really know whether a homosexuality gene(s) provide any specific advantage. If we use your theory that homosexuality is caused by too much or too little testosterone (for the sake of argument, let's say that not enough testosterone leads to homosexual males)...then perhaps too much testosterone has a disadvantage for survival, which is certainly a possibility.

But in other mamals there is no need for emotional attachment or for establishing social position, If animals only have this sexual drive to promote there genes as is the case, and they do not have societies (at least not ones as complicated as our) which provide norms, such as rasies families, then genticly there can be little ro no conection between genes and sexual orentation. As the gene would not have surrvied eariler mamals, and would have bred itself out before ever entering the hunan genepool.

If there is no connection between genes and sexual orientation, then why are most humans/mammals straight? It must be genetic, no?

Theoretically, masturbation should also have bred itself out before ever entering the genepool.

P.S. I should probably note that I don't believe there is a single gene responsible for sexual orientation. There are probably a lot of factors (genes) involved. So it's also possible that the individual genes may not be bred out through evolution.

[Biblio Bibuli]

If homo sexuality were a genetic disorder, don't you think that it would have been bread out of the genpool by now?

I'm sure that God never imagined that trillions and trillions of animals would be poluting the Earth one day. And I bet you that when he gets a chance to correct this he'll make all the homosexuals heterosexual and vice versa.

So when you wake up one morning and feel strange urges, don't worry 'bout it, it's God's will.

[PolyNewbie]

Oh Oh, what are they going to do with Dubya and half the congress ?

[mcqueen625]

You raise an interesting point. If someone is blind because of an inherited trait we have no problem calling the blindness a genetic 'defect' and everyone understands that we are not judging the blind person by saying they have a 'defect'. OTH, suggesting that a hypothetical homosexual gene is a genetic defect will lead to condemnation

Well, I want to make sure that nobody thinks I'm condemning anyone. There's nothing to condemn in my opinion. A person is born homosexual, that's quite obvious. However, a certain type of defect seems to have to exist in order for that to take place. What will be interesting, is when, if it happens, but when medicine and technology evolve far enough to be able to correct such defects. Such procedures are done on other types of conditions and abnormalities at the present time to babies yet to be born. I wonder what will happen, and what the ethical implications of those actions will be in regards to homosexuality.

If we can just isolate the gene that causes one to become homosexual maybe that gene can be manipulated to change it before the person is born. Obviously something is wrong, because nature designed not only human but animal genitals to fit together in order to continue the species. Regardless how two people of the saem sex attempt to mate, tehy cannot reproduce. This proves that something is screwy in their makeup, like it or not. I'm not homophobic, I'm just stating the obvious. So yes, homosexuality is not normal behaviour, if it were, everyone would be doing it without thought. I find it repulsive to see two people of the same sex flaunting their relationship in public. Keep it off the TV and in the bedroom!

[gc1765]

If we can just isolate the gene that causes one to become homosexual maybe that gene can be manipulated to change it before the person is born.

It is most likely not a single gene.

Obviously something is wrong, because nature designed not only human but animal genitals to fit together in order to continue the species. Regardless how two people of the saem sex attempt to mate, tehy cannot reproduce. This proves that something is screwy in their makeup, like it or not. I'm not homophobic, I'm just stating the obvious. So yes, homosexuality is not normal behaviour, if it were, everyone would be doing it without thought. I find it repulsive to see two people of the same sex flaunting their relationship in public. Keep it off the TV and in the bedroom!

Regardless of how you masturbate, you can not reproduce. This proves there is something screwy in your make up.