Why isn't homosexuality seen as an illness? (no homo)(no hate)(serious) NSFW

[Minotaur]

Its a defect from the biological standpoint, gay men have shown to have brain scans similar to females but they have male bodies - they are in the wrong physical form.

Something got screwed up when they were developing, its not their fault but its still an illness.

False observation and conclusion.

[Minotaur]

Some would argue you could treat attraction. For instance, psychologists treating an individual for ****philia or fetishism.

There are things some people can't, don't or won't understand...

Fetishism is not a crime; ****philia is currently a crime in our society. It was not always so, and is not in some societies. Any person can seek "treatment" for any condition. Some people struggle with their homosexuality only because they are conflicted about it due to familial or societal pressure. Yes, people seek to "turn straight". But all they succeed in doing is re-suppressing their orientation and activities. It's a cheat and a lie they are living. I'll bet most of us have tried it in one way or another at one time or another. But eventually the dame will burst.

[Minotaur]

Wow! I might have just found my new profession. Prostate milker.

Brb...

[hwpnow]

I have the go with what the experienced medical society says on this issue. They are far and away more credible than a random and sometimes brain dead meat head on BB.com.

I think blind faith in anyone (regardless of their qualifications) is a mistake. The medical society has made mistakes before, and some of the best medical treatments sometimes come from homemade remedies passed on through the family. So, just because someone's grandmother doesn't have a medical degree or something doesn't mean she can't provide good (or even the best) treatment to a condition.

There's alot of info and opinions out there about this topic and others and I believe in listening to it, thinking about it, then forming your own opinion.

[Minotaur]

) is a mistake. The medical society has made mistakes before, and some of the best medical treatments sometimes come from homemade remedies passed on through the family. So, just because someone's grandmother doesn't have a medical degree or something doesn't mean she can't provide good (or even the best) treatment to a condition.

Grandma has experience, which most of the posters here do not have. There is a vast difference.

[Astaldoath]

Good thing you made this thread. We were severely lacking in threads about homosexuality until now.

i lulzed


^oh hai homo

[Random Guy]

There are things some people can't, don't or won't understand...

Fetishism is not a crime; ****philia is currently a crime in our society. It was not always so, and is not in some societies. Any person can seek "treatment" for any condition. Some people struggle with their homosexuality only because they are conflicted about it due to familial or societal pressure. Yes, people seek to "turn straight". But all they succeed in doing is re-suppressing their orientation and activities. It's a cheat and a lie they are living. I'll bet most of us have tried it in one way or another at one time or another. But eventually the dame will burst.

I can agree with that viewpoint

[AKR]

Personally, I think this would help both sides (gays and anti-gays) deal with the issue more effectively and peacefully.

For gays, I think most gays don't want to be gay. It obviously puts them at odds with society in so many fundamental ways. From dating and prom to marriage and raising kids, being gay is brings conflict to all these areas and more.

Throughout history, race, religion, sex, and other things have put people "at odds" with society. I'm not sure how this makes it an illness. IMO, what gays really want is for people to f*ck off and let them be who they are. I doubt there are very many gay people who would wish they weren't gay if they weren't treated with such ignorant hatred and discrimination. Even in this situation, there are many people who are proud to be who they are and think you and others can go f*ck yourselves if you don't like their orientation. There is no conflict in dating, prom, marriage, and raising kids if there aren't any f*ckers to mess with people's lives.

And not to hurt anyone's feelings, but I really don't think TIITB is desired by any human being initially. I mean, while pooping might provide some relief to us all (especially if you've been holding it in all day), it's certainly not something you get all excited about or dream of. And TIITB just seems like a really really rough and painful version of pooping, and those that do like it most likely convinced themselves they liked it over time. But cumming is natural and pleasurable from the very first time you did it. So, I really don't think the rectum was intended to be a sexual organ.

It's pretty stupid for a straight guy to make statements about what is desired by people of another sexual orientation. Furthermore, not all gay guys take or give anal, so this doesn't really relate to homosexuality as a whole. I don't know any guy that doesn't like blow jobs, so if two guys just give each other blow jobs, your argument is shot to **** from that alone, unless you find blow jobs unnatural. I mean, cum can't really get to the uterus down that tube, can it? So lets call it an illness and get rid of straight fellatio.

You're also forgetting that females don't have penises, and either use toys or tongues. Most straight guys are enthralled by the idea of two women having sex, but they pretend they don't exist when they're talking about how horribly disgusting or uncomfortable gay sex is. Quite the strawman and double standard.

Having said that, I do believe that the sexual chemistry and chemical attractions between people can be tilted towards same sex relationships, both at a young age and involuntarily. I also believe the desire to take on the persona and preferences of the opposite sex can come at an early age and be involuntary.I believe these things can be innate or they can develop due to some experience or another.

Who says that liking the same sex is the "persona and preference" of the opposite sex? Homosexual behavior is found in many different animals, so you can't exactly say you're doing something that is a unique trait of a certain sex.

What I don't understand is, why society refuses to view this as a sickness. Just like if you were born deaf or due to some experience you became deaf? It seems, for homosexuals, that they want these issues to be categorized as part of their identity. Like, this is who they are not what they suffer from.

And what I don't understand is absolutely idiotic questions like this. WTF is wrong with you? Seriously? Define "sickness" for me, genius, because I can guarantee homosexuality doesn't fall within that medical definition. Homosexuality is not a disorder or a handicap. Why would you categorize it as one? That's absurd. That doesn't make any more sense then asking why a heterosexual wouldn't except their orientation as an illness.

For those that oppose homosexuality, they seem to think of it as solely a deviant behavior or rebelliousness, as if gays were stubbornly choosing to be
gay and take on all the problems associated with that. To this, many argue "when did straight people choose to be straight?" Which is a good point.

So I say, view homosexuality as an illness, then look for a cure. Thoughts?

I say give me one good reason why it's an illness.

Its a defect from the biological standpoint, gay men have shown to have brain scans similar to females but they have male bodies - they are in the wrong physical form.

Something got screwed up when they were developing, its not their fault but its still an illness.

Sources. Prove not only that their brain scans are similar but that it makes it an illness. Just because their brains might be like a females doesn't make it an illness. Why would it? If it's not an illness for women, why would it be for a man with a similar brain? That doesn't make any sense.

I can think of various ways in which homosexual behavior is beneficial to human and other animal societies, but I'm waiting for you to give me a reason why this hinders a species.

[hwpnow]

I say give me one good reason why it's an illness.

Simple: the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. Even if a straight couple decides not to have kids or they can't have kids, in principle the nature of their male/female relationship provides a structure for reproduction.

But homosexuals cannot reproduce. This is not only true for individual cases or by choice, but it is also true in principle. In other words, by nature, it is impossible for a male/male relationship or a female/female relationship to produce children. Period.

So, I think there is a chemical alteration that occurs at some stage or another that changes the orientation of ones sexuality. Some people say it's an over abundance of estrogen or a lack of testosterone, but I disagree with that, and find that too over simplified. (there are buffed gays too)

But I think there is some chemical complexity to it. For example, if you watched a 20/20 episode on the subject a while back, they did an experiment with lab mice, in which they were able to alter the sexuality of both male and female mice to behave as the opposite sex. So the female altered mouse, who usually desires male pursuit, resisted and almost fought off the males. While the male altered mouse, who would usually fight off other male mice, positioned himself as a female mouse, welcoming males to have sex with it.

[Gabriel Anton]

Starting from zero, to me it made sense that it was seen as an illness or condition (problem) , as most abnormalities are.

[AKR]

Simple: the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. Even if a straight couple decides not to have kids or they can't have kids, in principle the nature of their male/female relationship provides a structure for reproduction.

But homosexuals cannot reproduce. This is not only true for individual cases or by choice, but it is also true in principle. In other words, by nature, it is impossible for a male/male relationship or a female/female relationship to produce children. Period.

Huh? How exactly is it not an illness for a man or woman to be sterile or infertile but a person who is attracted to someone that will not produce them offspring it's an illness? How is it that a lifestyle choice between heterosexuals that purposefully results in no children is not an illness, but two gay people who WANT children would be considered sick? That makes no sense. It doesn't matter what the "nature" of the relationship is. If they are physically incapable of producing offspring or their mental state causes them to choose "unproductive" lifestyles, the principle is the same. It's someone who's biological (including psychological) condition renders them incapable of creating children. The primary role of sex is dictated by the individual. Evolution and biology are not some sort of god which decides the meaning of your life.

Even if you were looking at this from an evolutionary perspective, as I already said, gays have their positive role in societies. Why would you find it in most or all of the highly intelligent, social species if it was a negative trait?

I guess my gf and other non-breeders have an illness, because our lifestyle renders us child free. I guess any couple that use some form of birth control or abstinence are sick because they're personalities hinder them from having children. Please don't stay up nights, trying to think of ways to "cure" us.

If it's something gays and non-breeders are happy with and it doesn't hurt anyone, why the f*ck do you care?

So, I think there is a chemical alteration that occurs at some stage or another that changes the orientation of ones sexuality. Some people say it's an over abundance of estrogen or a lack of testosterone, but I disagree with that, and find that too over simplified. (there are buffed gays too)

But I think there is some chemical complexity to it. For example, if you watched a 20/20 episode on the subject a while back, they did an experiment with lab mice, in which they were able to alter the sexuality of both male and female mice to behave as the opposite sex. So the female altered mouse, who usually desires male pursuit, resisted and almost fought off the males. While the male altered mouse, who would usually fight off other male mice, positioned himself as a female mouse, welcoming males to have sex with it.

Ok, and that makes it an illness how? I could explain all sorts of manipulative processes that change a person's personality, but that doesn't make their behavior part of an illness.

[1devil]

Personally, I think this would help both sides (gays and anti-gays) deal with the issue more effectively and peacefully.

For gays, I think most gays don't want to be gay. It obviously puts them at odds with society in so many fundamental ways. From dating and prom to marriage and raising kids, being gay is brings conflict to all these areas and more.

And not to hurt anyone's feelings, but I really don't think TIITB is desired by any human being initially. I mean, while pooping might provide some relief to us all (especially if you've been holding it in all day), it's certainly not something you get all excited about or dream of. And TIITB just seems like a really really rough and painful version of pooping, and those that do like it most likely convinced themselves they liked it over time. But cumming is natural and pleasurable from the very first time you did it. So, I really don't think the rectum was intended to be a sexual organ.

Having said that, I do believe that the sexual chemistry and chemical attractions between people can be tilted towards same sex relationships, both at a young age and involuntarily. I also believe the desire to take on the persona and preferences of the opposite sex can come at an early age and be involuntary. I believe these things can be innate or they can develop due to some experience or another.

What I don't understand is, why society refuses to view this as a sickness. Just like if you were born deaf or due to some experience you became deaf? It seems, for homosexuals, that they want these issues to be categorized as part of their identity. Like, this is who they are not what they suffer from.

For those that oppose homosexuality, they seem to think of it as solely a deviant behavior or rebelliousness, as if gays were stubbornly choosing to be
gay and take on all the problems associated with that. To this, many argue "when did straight people choose to be straight?" Which is a good point.

So I say, view homosexuality as an illness, then look for a cure. Thoughts?

The DSM-IV does not classify it as a mental illness, that's why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...ntal_Disorders

http://www.psychiatryonline.com/reso...x?resourceID=1

[Minotaur]

Simple: the primary purpose of sex is reproduction.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: you don't know that. You are only going on observations, which may only be the tip of the iceberg. Human sexuality has changed over the milennia, such that human females are able to have sex and conceive any time at all. Almost all other animals, whether fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals have set breeding and estrus times. Our sexuality has evolved, and homosexuality may be part of it to help continue the species. So just stop the drivel about what sex is for.

[AKR]

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: you don't know that. You are only going on observations, which may only be the tip of the iceberg. Human sexuality has changed over the milennia, such that human females are able to have sex and conceive any time at all. Almost all other animals, whether fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals have set breeding and estrus times. Our sexuality has evolved, and homosexuality may be part of it to help continue the species. So just stop the drivel about what sex is for.

Which is probably why you find homosexual activity among the most advanced species. Dolphins, primates, birds, etc. These are highly intelligent/emotional creatures who have used homosexuality to their advantages.

[Skettch]

Sources. Prove not only that their brain scans are similar but that it makes it an illness. Just because their brains might be like a females doesn't make it an illness. Why would it? If it's not an illness for women, why would it be for a man with a similar brain? That doesn't make any sense.

I can think of various ways in which homosexual behavior is beneficial to human and other animal societies, but I'm waiting for you to give me a reason why this hinders a species.

I am not sure how gender confusion would be beneficial humans or other species.

People who can't reproduce but are straight are still defective, they are just less defective as they take on their natural gender roles which limits the damage to society that they cause.

Gays on the otherhand are attempting to restructure society in order to accommodate their illness.

As I stated before male and female have different biological roles and different anatomy which suits their personality and function - we have created a society based on this, I see no reason to allow it to change.

[mntbikedude]

Your comment about curing all the homo's. Do you think you really want that. I wonder how much inpact on everyones life would change if all the gays past and present were suddenly rewired straight.

I wonder how you would be impacted by the music they wrote, their out look on the world. How would clothing styles be changed.

I'm sure I am just touching on the tip of the iceberg here. But I really believe that all our lives would be different by removing the cultural aspect to our lifes that has been made better by the gays through out history.

Thank God they couldn't be cured.

[Minotaur]

I am not sure how gender confusion would be beneficial humans or other species.

You're making an assumption again that gay men want to be women or think like women. That could not be further from the truth.

Imo, gays on the otherhand are attempting to restructure society in order to accommodate their illness, though there is no proof of homosexuality being an illness especially when the medical and scientific community has determined as much.

Fixed.

As I stated before male and female have different biological roles and different anatomy which suits their personality and function - we have created a society based on this, I see no reason to allow it to change.

You don't know what the roles and purposes are. Pretty chauvinistic and sexist there, young'n.

[AKR]

I am not sure how gender confusion would be beneficial humans or other species.

How are they confused?

People who can't reproduce but are straight are still defective, they are just less defective as they take on their natural gender roles which limits the damage to society that they cause.

lol wat? Stop talking about "natural gender roles." You don't even know what gender roles are. Go study sociology and then come back and talk to me about gender roles. Besides, you already said that there was nothing wrong with people who don't breed, but now you're changing your mind. Which is it? And how exactly is it an illness? I certainly don't feel ill. I feel better off without kids. It hasn't hindered my life in the least bit.

Gays on the otherhand are attempting to restructure society in order to accommodate their illness.

Right, so I guess black people and women are ill because they have tried to restructure a biased society and obtain equal rights. Those sick f*cks!

As I stated before male and female have different biological roles and different anatomy which suits their personality and function - we have created a society based on this, I see no reason to allow it to change.

Um, what are you rambling on about? People have been gay, most likely before we even developed into humans. Look at our closest primates. There is a lot of homosexual activity there.

Your argument is really pathetic. I'm sort of getting bored here. You don't know what gender rolls are; you can't stick to your principles in an argument, and you think that attempts for equality through the restructuring of society is part of the criteria for an illness. This is really pathetic. I really should get back to my music. Please put your tail between your legs in shame and leave.

[Minotaur]

lol wat? Stop talking about "natural gender roles." You don't even know what gender roles are. ...

Your argument is really pathetic. I'm sort of getting bored here. You don't know what gender rolls are;

He doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't know where he gets this crap.

[KhanPaulsen]

In reply to name of thread:

What is/isn't seen as an illness is solely dependent on the socio-political leanings of a given culture.

What the medical community says, to that end, is entirely irrelevant. If people want to make that appeal to authority for their rationalizations used to uphold their position, fine, but that doesn't mean anything in the end. It comes down to the people in a given culture.

[stateless]

I can see at least some logic in calling something an illness in the hope that people will not treat it as a sin. In reality though that wouldn't work. People would still be prejudice and it would in fact likely increase prejudice. Still, this as a view in not mindblwoing as lots of people hold this opinion, even though its something that I completely disagree with.

What I don't get with the OPs post is how he does an about turn, and states that we should try to cure homosexuality (seemingly because the masses do not like it). The post in its totality doesn't really make much sense because it starts with a change of classifcation in order for people to be more sympathetic, and ends with the OP actually stating that homosexuality should be cured.

[stateless]

In reply to name of thread:

What is/isn't seen as an illness is solely dependent on the socio-political leanings of a given culture.

What the medical community says, to that end, is entirely irrelevant. If people want to make that appeal to authority for their rationalizations used to uphold their position, fine, but that doesn't mean anything in the end. It comes down to the people in a given culture.

The medical view often feeds into and contributes to the view of the general populous (and vice versa). By that measure it is not entirely irrelevant unless you are taking a snapshot in time and not viewing opinions as something that adapt and adjust over time, as is apparent.

On one level though, you are of course right when you say that whether something is an illness or not really comes down to the people, the mases and what they believe.

[mntbikedude]

I can see at least some logic in calling something an illness in the hope that people will not treat it as a sin. In reality though that wouldn't work. People would still be prejudice and it would in fact likely increase prejudice. Still, this as a view in not mindblwoing as lots of people hold this opinion, even though its something that I completely disagree with.

What I don't get with the OPs post is how he does an about turn, and states that we should try to cure homosexuality (seemingly because the masses do not like it). The post in its totality doesn't really make much sense because it starts with a change of classifcation in order for people to be more sympathetic, and ends with the OP actually stating that homosexuality should be cured.

No it is bull**** no matter how you spin it. Gays self-esteem has already been stomped into the ground. Making them feel like their natural attraction is an illness just is one more form of cultural abuse.

This is all so stupid, it's like trying to make people that are left handed feel like there is something wrong with them.

I still cannot understand why this matters to anyone.

[lancs_hotpot]

Quite a stupid view you have i must say. An illness? A Cure?

I take it you are attracted to women yeah? What if someone said they want to cure you of that and change you so you are attracted to men? 'Mad!', i hear you cry. Well its exactly the same.

I think you have an illness mate.

[mntbikedude]

Quite a stupid view you have i must say. An illness? A Cure?

I take it you are attracted to women yeah? What if someone said they want to cure you of that and change you so you are attracted to men? 'Mad!', i hear you cry. Well its exactly the same.

I think you have an illness mate.

You know what that is a good argument, that would be awesome for everyone to have to exsperience being in the minority. And to have the majority try and cure them to be like them.

[KhanPaulsen]

The medical view often feeds into and contributes to the view of the general populous (and vice versa). By that measure it is not entirely irrelevant unless you are taking a snapshot in time and not viewing opinions as something that adapt and adjust over time, as is apparent.

Translation: The medical view is often used as a rationalization by many.

Relevance: Minimal at best. It doesn't form the underlying basis for what is/isn't accepted, or is/isn't an illness.

If the majority of people thought it was an illness because the color of the sky is blue, it remains an illness. Human behavior, and cultural beliefs aren't necessarily predicated on logic, rationality, or the expertise of a given group of people (in this case the medical community).

The problems are further complicated when we realize rationality isn't an all-objective standard, it is simply the means by which we attempt to reduce subjectivity.

A great example is that homosexuality was no longer treated as a disorder, in the US, not because of some groundbreaking scientific breakthrough, but rather because of a change in the cultural landscape of the given era.

Socio-political leanings run everything in a society. It's why religious folk, regardless of the arguments, will continue to view homosexuality as an unacceptable behavior.

On one level though, you are of course right when you say that whether something is an illness or not really comes down to the people, the mases and what they believe.

Bingo.

[stateless]

No it is bull**** no matter how you spin it. Gays self-esteem has already been stomped into the ground. Making them feel like their natural attraction is an illness just is one more form of cultural abuse.

This is all so stupid, it's like trying to make people that are left handed feel like there is something wrong with them.

I still cannot understand why this matters to anyone.

You are right. As a gay person growing up in a society that picks over and fixates over homosexuality to a ridiculous extent, there are of course consequences to that. If I was heterosexual I imagine that I would not be so reserved and self conscious. In my younger years I was in a state of inner torment over sexuality and effectively had no-one to turn to for years, not even family. I feel that as a result that mindset has been cast in amber and I only ever go to people with my problems when I'm desperate. Many people discuss difference/homosexuality in very crass and cruel terms and they do not appear to realise to it applies to real people in real life.Perhaps they do not care. I suppose that is the essense of prejudice.

[lancs_hotpot]

You know what that is a good argument, that would be awesome for everyone to have to exsperience being in the minority. And to have the majority try and cure them to be like them.

Yeah, i dont see why people have to even put much thought into they way gay people are and why they are like that. Its not hurting or effecting anyone, so whats the fuss? Focus on something else i say.

[Minotaur]

"Society" cannot simply declare a particular action or trait as an illness or lack of illness. "Society" does not have the skills. That's mob rule, and what caused countless women to be burned alive, drowned, hanged and eviscerated because "society" said they were witches. It's a good thing we have a community of people, a subset of "society" called scientists, who devote themselves to studying and determining illness and its effects, or the absence of illness. The majority is often wrong.

[stateless]

Translation: The medical view is often used as a rationalization by many.

Relevance: Minimal at best. It doesn't form the underlying basis for what is/isn't accepted, or is/isn't an illness.

If the majority of people thought it was an illness because the color of the sky is blue, it remains an illness. Human behavior, and cultural beliefs aren't necessarily predicated on logic, rationality, or the expertise of a given group of people (in this case the medical community).

The problems are further complicated when we realize rationality isn't an all-objective standard, it is simply the means by which we attempt to reduce subjectivity.

A great example is that homosexuality was no longer treated as a disorder, in the US, not because of some groundbreaking scientific breakthrough, but rather because of a change in the cultural landscape of the given era.

Socio-political leanings run everything in a society. It's why religious folk, regardless of the arguments, will continue to view homosexuality as an unacceptable behavior.



Bingo.

I will take minimal over irrelevant. For instance commissions are set up which sometimes take medical view into account, which can feed into legislative decisions. I'm not saying that this always or often happens, but that it has happened on occasion. There is a certain value to medical consensus. Once something is set into law people can/do view that change in a different light. It is seen as important to be law abiding and hence that further changes minds. Not in an instant, but eventually. I dare to say that if you took two similiat communities and legalised gay marriage in one of them and criminalised homosexuality in the other, that in 30 years time those communities would view homosexuality in a very different light, not because it's right or wrong, but because they are tend to believe that it is and eventually just accept it. I'm sure you agree with the tailend of this process as it ties in to some extent with your post.

I tend to believe though that the media has a much more dramatic influence of peoples beliefs than medical profession, due to its mass appeal.