Homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973

Started by Scribble22 pages

Originally posted by It's xyz!
thats a grey area...
I'd say it's pretty black and white, myself.

Originally posted by Scribble
I'd say it's pretty black and white, myself.
oh you. haermm

It absolutely is a mental illness/birth defect. It isn't a choice and it can't be changed. Its also something that a person shouldn't be shamed or hated for.

But it certainly isn't normal, beneficial or preferred. And celebrating it is as ridiculous as celebrating down syndrome.

It seems like it's conclusively a mental disorder. Thanks for the input guys

You cite the DSM as proof and then ignore that homosexuality being a mental disorder was removed. Good one.

Rob no matter how much you hate gay people I will never say it is a mental disorder. Why do you hate the gas so much

You do realize in that your recently said on this very page that you think homosexuality is a mental disorder and you have on multiple occasions in this thread claimed or implied that homosexuality is "degenerate".

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Transgendered people are homos who want even more attention. They should kill themselves.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
And I'm glad transgender people commit suicide.

Oh my God.

Originally posted by The Lost
Oh my God.

He's just begging for attention, the more someone denies his trolly comments, the more extreme he gets.

I've pretty consistent over this entire thread minus those two comments and my lack of understanding of words.

The thing with consistency is it comes in the good kind and the bad kind.

Sure, but good and bad are subjective.

I stand by my claim that due to millions of years of heterosexual breeding, it's clear that homosexuality does not reproduce and is not beneficial to evolution. This does not mean it's a mental illness, it just means that evolution and production of society would be better off if homosexuality did not exist, however, today's society promotes freedom of choice, expression, and the persuit of happiness. Honestly I wouldn't have it any other way, regardless of why one person wants to express homosexual desires.

It is okay to express homosexual desires of course, however, there are precautions to be taken, as is with any sexual encounter, and, for reasons people may be aware of, homosexuality has dangers and difficulties. This, I believe, is a result of evolution. I'm not going to patronise you on this, but I will just state Charlie sheen and freddy Mercury got aids from multiple sexual partners. It's not even ironic. Those who reproduce are less likely to catch STDs because of a lack of multiple partners. Straight and bi people are subject to this, as I've just stated. But homesexuals will in fact, never reproduce outside of IVF, or other extreme measures. Now, I don't want to suggest homosexuals have multiple partners, but they are likely to based on the aforementioned lack of breeding. This is bad on an evolutionary level.

I hope you can at least objectifiably understand this train of thought.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Sure, but good and bad are subjective.

I stand by my claim that due to millions of years of heterosexual breeding, it's clear that homosexuality does not reproduce and is not beneficial to evolution. This does not mean it's a mental illness, it just means that evolution and production of society would be better off if homosexuality did not exist, however, today's society promotes freedom of choice, expression, and the persuit of happiness. Honestly I wouldn't have it any other way, regardless of why one person wants to express homosexual desires.

It is okay to express homosexual desires of course, however, there are precautions to be taken, as is with any sexual encounter, and, for reasons people may be aware of, homosexuality has dangers and difficulties. This, I believe, is a result of evolution. I'm not going to patronise you on this, but I will just state Charlie sheen and freddy Mercury got aids from multiple sexual partners. It's not even ironic. Those who reproduce are less likely to catch STDs because of a lack of multiple partners. Straight and bi people are subject to this, as I've just stated. But homesexuals will in fact, never reproduce outside of IVF, or other extreme measures. Now, I don't want to suggest homosexuals have multiple partners, but they are likely to based on the aforementioned lack of breeding. This is bad on an evolutionary level.

I hope you can at least objectifiably understand this train of thought.

No, I cannot "objectively" understand that train of thought because your post was chock full of conjecture and presumptuous nonsense. I'm seriously not trying to be a prick but the lot of what you said was legitimately ignorant. It is a very unscientific, desperate viewing of homosexuality and sexuality in general.

I've gone through great lengths to study sexuality and sexology so I know better. Unfortunately, I won't be refuting your points because I spent enough time doing that and I think I've extended my olive branch as far as it will go. You've said some incredibly hateful things in this thread and I am just being forward and telling you up front that I won't be engaging you any longer because of them.

My intention isn't to offend you but I no longer feel comfortable engaging you.

Originally posted by The Lost
No, I cannot "objectively" understand that train of thought because your post was chock full of conjecture and presumptuous nonsense. I'm seriously not trying to be a prick but the lot of what you said was legitimately ignorant. It is a very unscientific, desperate viewing of homosexuality and sexuality in general.

I've gone through great lengths to study sexuality and sexology so I know better. Unfortunately, I won't be refuting your points because I spent enough time doing that and I think I've extended my olive branch as far as it will go. You've said some incredibly hateful things in this thread and I am just being forward and telling you up front that I won't be engaging you any longer because of them.

My intention isn't to offend you but I no longer feel comfortable engaging you.

there is no presumptuous nonsense unless you think homosexuality not reproducing is presumptuous, multiple sexual partners increasing the likelihood of STDs is presumptuous, breeding reducing the rate of sexual partners is presumptuous.

Can you at least use your great length of study to show why these statements are presumptuous? Homosexual breeding, monogamous couples or virgins with STDs, parents who have a higher rate of sexual partners after breeding.....something along those lines.

Perhaps the inferred, homosexuals are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, not breed, catch STDs.....whereas heterosexuals, bisexuals, pan sexual etc. are more likely to breed?

Their genetics are passed on more likely, outside of extreme cases like IVF. This has been going on for millions of years and denying that would be dubious.

Originally posted by It's xyz!

I stand by my claim that due to millions of years of heterosexual breeding, it's clear that homosexuality does not reproduce and is not beneficial to evolution.

The fact that both people & animals have practiced homosexual acts just as long as they've practiced heterosexual acts kinda proves it's a mute argument to claim whether it is or isn't beneficial to evolution.

What's pretty obvious is you're trying to hide your homophobia with some kind of passive/aggressive inane debate on evolution.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The fact that both people & animals have practiced homosexual acts just as long as they've practiced heterosexual acts kinda proves it's a mute argument to claim whether it is or isn't beneficial to evolution.

What's pretty obvious is you're trying to hide your homophobia with some kind of passive/aggressive inane debate on evolution.

its not a moot argument. Homosexual acts have been frowned upon throughout most of human history, and it's not just the Catholic Church. Animals dont practice homosexuality all that much. And when they do, it's not always desired, it's more out of desperation on one part, and a victim on the other. I don't really know any animals with a significantly high population of homosexuals that are healthy, but that would be interesting. Let's not forget that most animals are domesticated by us and most of the rest are endangered.

As for evolution, I'm not sure how much homosexuality has occurred in evolution. I do know that every generation has resulted from heterosexual activity for at least a few million years.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
its not a moot argument. Homosexual acts have been frowned upon throughout most of human history, and it's not just the Catholic Church. Animals dont practice homosexuality all that much. And when they do, it's not always desired, it's more out of desperation on one part, and a victim on the other. I don't really know any animals with a significantly high population of homosexuals that are healthy, but that would be interesting. Let's not forget that most animals are domesticated by us and most of the rest are endangered.

As for evolution, I'm not sure how much homosexuality has occurred in evolution. I do know that every generation has resulted from heterosexual activity for at least a few million years.

There's been studies that have recorded homosexual activities in over 450 different species of animals. One theory suggests that harem based societies like lions, where there is only one dominant male will result in lesbian acts amongst the females. It's not shunned or an act of desperation, it's simply accepted in some lion prides.
There's always cases of male silverback gorillas choosing a male partner instead of their female harem.
Lesbian penguins have been known to steal eggs from other clutches & raise the chicks as their own.
And male dolphins have been known also to engage in homosexual acts whilst living in pods with numerous females.
All these species aren't facing extinction through their homosexual activities.
There is also the zoo in Zurich which only features a collection of gay animals. There is also no evidence that animals discriminate against eachother because of their sexuality.

Yes, your constant point that hetero sex leads to reproduction & gay sex doesn't is pretty obvious but moot to the argument that homosexuals go against evolution.
Evolution is also on an intellectual level & not just counted as a population of species.

Don't bother bringing the Catholic Church to your defence, they've spent millions & millions of dollars throughout history compensating victims of child abuse from their very own clergy.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
There's been studies that have recorded homosexual activities in over 450 different species of animals. One theory suggests that harem based societies like lions, where there is only one dominant male will result in lesbian acts amongst the females. It's not shunned or an act of desperation, it's simply accepted in some lion prides.
There's always cases of male silverback gorillas choosing a male partner instead of their female harem.
Lesbian penguins have been known to steal eggs from other clutches & raise the chicks as their own.
And male dolphins have been known also to engage in homosexual acts whilst living in pods with numerous females.
All these species aren't facing extinction through their homosexual activities.
There is also the zoo in Zurich which only features a collection of gay animals. There is also no evidence that animals discriminate against eachother because of their sexuality.

Yes, your constant point that hetero sex leads to reproduction & gay sex doesn't is pretty obvious but moot to the argument that homosexuals go against evolution.
Evolution is also on an intellectual level & not just counted as a population of species.

Don't bother bringing the Catholic Church to your defence, they've spent millions & millions of dollars throughout history compensating victims of child abuse from their very own clergy.

a zoo is human made. Lions were domesticated in ancient Egyptian times and are endangered, dolphins are wolves who were forced to live and evolve in the water and are endangered, penguins are endangered, silverback gorillas are endangered.

I mean, I used the Catholic Church as an example simply to say they're not the only example. Almost all religions and cultures for millenia have seen homosexuality as a bad practice. If you don't want to discuss religion, that's fine.

Can you name animals that aren't endangered that practice homosexuality?

Oh Jesus, those animals you've mentioned are endangered by us humans hunting them & NOT because there's homosexuality in their species.

Why don't you just admit you're a homophobe instead of trying to justify a stance with ridiculous claims.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
a zoo is human made. Lions were domesticated in ancient Egyptian times and are endangered, dolphins are wolves who were forced to live and evolve in the water and are endangered, penguins are endangered, silverback gorillas are endangered.

I mean, I used the Catholic Church as an example simply to say they're not the only example. Almost all religions and cultures for millenia have seen homosexuality as a bad practice. If you don't want to discuss religion, that's fine.

Can you name animals that aren't endangered that practice homosexuality?

The Greeks thought homosexuality was a great thing to partake in, and sometimes superior to heterosexual relationships. The Romans were fine with homosexual behaviour until their conversion to Christianity, they just looked down on being submissive in a relationship. The Native Americans didn't give a shit if you were gay. The Japanese didn't give a shit if you were gay. The Chinese didn't give a shit until the late Imperial period due to influence from Christianity and Islam.

This is just off the top of my head, but most bigotry towards homosexuality seems to derive from Judeo-Christian culture. So no, regardless of whatever evolutionary argument you're making, "most cultures" did not hate homosexuality.