Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away

[oOtailspinOo]

And now the senseless bickering, insults, and grandstanding begins. :facepalm:

 

This is why we cannot have nice and open discussions.

 

Anyway...

 

 

 

Modern day scientists and psychiatrists consider homosexuality to be normal. We are also studying the behaviour in animals. It is very common in goats and we are now discovering and understanding the reasons why this happens in nature. :smile:

Homosexuality in animals is almost always an expression of pathology or extreme environmental turmoil.

 

Actually... not quite. Homosexuality in animals is fairly common and is usually an expression of dominance over other members of a social group, among those animals which form social groups where males do not outright kill each other. It is also fairly common for males of all species to try and have sex with anything that does not kill them immediately. So, probably not saying much.

 

Also... We are talking about two entirely different things. Animals may form social connections, but they do not love in the same way that humans do. The emotional attachment between two humans is a far deeper matter than just the mechanics of intercourse or what anatomy goes where or who is on top.

Nope. I don't want to come across as a contrarian here but your understanding of animal behaviour is dated. For example lets look at K9s. The old school of thought was that "humping" was meant to show dominance. However the modern day animal behaviourists and other professionals who specialize in K9 behaviour have proven through years of recorded observation that humping behaviour has nothing to with dominance and today it is considered normal "PLAY" behaviour. In goats, homosexual behaviour is VERY common. This behaviour has been observed with all the members of the herd regardless of their standing in the pecking order (hierarchy). That is how scientists and behaviourists figured out that we had it all wrong. They started observing the behaviour in many different animal groups without any aggression and regardless of hierarchy rank. The evidence by today's scientific standards is overwhelming. We are now recognizing this behaviour in apes and chimpanzees and it is also very prevalent in another monkey family which name escapes me now.

This probably is the case since most of my information on the subject is a tad dated... However, general statement I was making is still valid. Anyone who tries to claim that homosexual acts are unnatural clearly doesn't know anything about Nature. Meaning that most stigmas related to these acts are largely based on cultural beliefs and practices.

 

This does not mean that open and permissible homosexuality is necessarily a good thing for society, just that it is, in itself, not a sign of disease, or evidence of a disorder, nor is it something that can easily be changed by means of force or indoctrination.

 

 

Funny, because from your posts I wasn't sure what you were saying. You seemed to not know yourself what the topic was and where it was going at times. However I obviously agree with your statement that homosexual acts are normal in nature. But I am completely perplexed at your next statement. Maybe you would like to expand on your thoughts about how homosexuality is not necessarily a good thing for society. I happen to know of major sociology studies on this exact topic right now. They are actually going on all around the world but the one I am referring to is in Africa.

 

You are obviously much older than me and maybe back when you were in university these beliefs were the norm. But like everything in life things progress. Sociologists as we chat right now are studying and understanding the purpose of homosexuality in nature and societies. It is a very complex topic and to be honest I also don't like the direction this thread is heading since actually the beginning of page 3. I also don't like have these conversations with people whom I don't know their educational background. You can call me elitist and I can live with that. There is a reason why neurologists don't sit at the bar and have conversations with construction workers. That is because people who achieve scientific and medical success above the phd level understand and experience life differently. Their linguistic patterns are different and their knowledge is far beyond that of the everyday blue collar worker to the point that the doctor will say something and because the other person never heard of whatever he said before in their life , they will then argue the point. It is human nature. Everyone does it and we all at one time in our lives have been guilty of doing it. human beings behave this way because no one likes to look stupid and be talked down to. It is a behavioural law of the universe that force creates counter force. Especially in the dark recesses of the mind muhahaha :tongue:

 

I come from a large family. My mother is a doctor and my father a lawyer. I have four brother and sisters. My eldest brother is a dental surgeon and my older sister is a psychiatrist. My families friends are also of this highly educated class. This past week my parents had some company over at their house and one of the guests was head of infectious diseases at one of the leading hospitals in the country. I don't know how this conversation started but off the cuff he said that dogs mouths are very dirty. Now another guest immediately argued that they heard that dogs mouths are cleaner than humans. He just calmly repeated himself by saying very clearly, "No dogs mouths are filled with germs that can be very dangerous to children and the elderly." And as he is literally petting one of my parents dogs he said with a wry smile, "My mouth is much cleaner than these dog's mouths and I would never allow their mouth near mine." Now when a person who holds his office talks, your job is to listen. It goes against conventional wisdom that a dogs mouth is dirtier than our mouths. Most people believe that a dogs mouth is clean. But think about it. How could it be. They are smelling and licking other dog's behinds. They are smelling and licking other dog's urine outside. They eat poo often and garbage. They don't brush their teeth or floss :teehee: I mean come on... of course their mouths are dirty. Now try telling a dog lover that and you will see a perfectly normal person turn into the devil arguing the point till they die. Oh they will argue that there is a chemical in the saliva that acts as a disinfectant and on they go. That was the look on this woman's face in my parents kitchen as we were being served desert. Her face literally just dropped in her lap but the conversation moved forward to another topic. I mean, who's going to argue with him. he is the head of infectious diseases at the leading hospital in this field in the entire country! But for a second there, everyone else besides the doctor froze and was thinking the same thing I was, "I never heard that before." But I would bet a hundred dollars that you can say that to people anywhere and they will argue that dog's mouths are cleaner than human mouths. :dance: No one knows where they heard and learned this but almost everybody believes it especially dog lovers.

 

My point is that I have no intention in trying to convince a priest that god doesn't exist or do I have any energy left to debate strangers on the internet and try to educate them on modern psychology and sociology. Where would I start. LoL I am one year away from a masters degree and how would I explain seven years plus of study? I can't and I won't pretend to try. All I can do is tell people the truth and then let them live their lives. I don't have this need to prove I am right. I know I am and that is enough for me. I am very happy to continue this conversation in private. That way we both can escape the senseless bickering, insults, and grandstanding as you have put it. But to be honest it is such a complex discussion I have to wonder, to what end? I have all this knowledge at my fingertips whereas you may not. It doesn't seem fair.

 

Besides, this thread has turned into an, "I am right and you are wrong" scenario. Not necessarily with you personally but as a whole. I bet a thread on climate change would go much the same way. Luckily I am not a climatologist eh? :turned: I will tell you one thing I have learned in my pathological studies; when people start throwing insults then you know they have nothing left to argue and you have won. It is a behaviour seen in prisons and in university debate clubs. :tongue: That is where this thread has gone and that is why I choose to let it end. I don't need to solve the world's problems, I have enough of my own to work on tyvm :ohdear:

 

It was a pleasure meeting you Vagrant0. See you around dem boards :thumbsup:

 

Edited July 8, 2014 by oOtailspinOo

[HeyYou]

Just because someone holds a high position, does not necessarily imply that you should take whatever they say as fact. Blind worship is just as much a fallacy as questioning everything, regardless of who is saying it. (of course, when it comes to politicians, you should ALWAYS fact check what they are trying to pass off.)

 

comparing a dogs mouth, to a humans, is apples to oranges. Yeah, dogs do indeed have some truly disgusting habits...... but, they have a different set of bacteria in their mouths, with some overlap with humans. "Cleaner" is a relative term. :D

 

In all reality, I would rather kiss my dog, than a fair few people I have met.

 

Edit: Also, this is one of those 'hot button' topics that there are two distinct spheres of thought. Of course it is going to get emotional. Right up there with climate change, gun control, and creationism/evolution.

Edited July 8, 2014 by HeyYou

[kvnchrist]

Sorry. I don't really see any upside to discussing anything with dismissive arrogant people unless you like being talked down to. There are much more fullfilling ways of wasting your time.

[Vagrant0]

 

My educational history really doesn't matter since I don't try to claim myself as any sort of accredited expert in this or any field. Even the so-called experts in this field have been completely wrong and just trying to validate their own beliefs for almost as long as the field has existed. While this is to be expected with any field of study where subjectivity and interpretation is involved, it has not stopped people from stating things as absolute truth despite that "truth" affecting millions. I may have gathered enough information on the subject to where I could stand ground with a Doctor, but my approach to the subject is more wisdom based than knowledge based. As such, as long as a person is capable of handling the concepts without being offended, shocked, or distraught over what might be discussed, I don't care much for what educational privileges they might have since a piece of paper does not prove capacity. Knowedge and understanding should be given to those who seek it and accept that their blissful ignorance may be disrupted.

 

As to my comment

This does not mean that open and permissible homosexuality is necessarily a good thing for society, just that it is, in itself, not a sign of disease, or evidence of a disorder, nor is it something that can easily be changed by means of force or indoctrination.

I mean exactly that with no hidden message. Just because something is a natural behavior does not mean it is necessarily good and which should be allowed or encouraged in all forms. Sex itself is natural and is necessary for prolonging the species, but given the countless transferable diseases, unplanned pregnancy, prostitution, and the addictive nature of sex it is not always a good thing. Diseases weaken the health of a society when they spread unchecked. Unplanned pregnancy places strain on social services and those involved (especially when multiple partners are involved). Prostitution leads to slavery, human trafficking, violence, and enables countless other evils. The addictive nature of sex leads people to seek it out whenever possible, as often as possible, without thinking about the results or even considering actions to mitigate the preventable ones. But even then, there are reasons which exist only because it makes other, more complex things easier to handle.

 

As the bulk of humanity tends to be simple, lazy, and hypocritical, few stop to consider as to why beliefs are established over several generations to control behavior and more concerned with just trying to justify themselves.

[standalone09]

So that means that a married couple that is honest with each other could never get aids right? looking only from the sexual perspective obviously?

 

if so i found the cure for aids, just dont cheat on your partner :D

[HeyYou]

So that means that a married couple that is honest with each other could never get aids right? looking only from the sexual perspective obviously?

 

if so i found the cure for aids, just dont cheat on your partner :D

Provided neither have it when they are married, they don't exhibit behavior conducive to contracting it, (unprotected sex outside of the marriage, intravenous drug use, etc.), and don't pick it up from a dirty needle in a doctors office, unscreened blood transfusion, etc. That would work. Of course, that goes for just about every STD......

[Vagrant0]

So that means that a married couple that is honest with each other could never get aids right? looking only from the sexual perspective obviously?

 

if so i found the cure for aids, just dont cheat on your partner :D

The important factor is to limit the statistical likelihood of exposure since you cannot control for all factors. While true that honest and committed heterosexual partners are less likely to get an STD, the same is also true for honest and committed homosexual partners. Meaning that the associated risk has nothing to do with sexual orientation but rather how honest and committed those involved are. The explosion of aids in the 80's was not started because of homosexual intercourse, but rather because of people of all walks of life having promiscuous unprotected sex. It was more common among homosexuals primarily because they could have a great deal more unprotected sex with multiple partners* within the space of a month without the usual risks.

 

*not implying that everyone did, but as with most things, it is those who take things too far that ruins it for everyone else.

[Nintii]

Lesbianism ... been there, done that (for over 10 yrs), lost my T-shirt.

For me it's simply a matter of design ... you don't put petrol into a diesel motor, now you might like to

but it won't work.

A female and male were designed to fit, physically ... because that's what in my opinion this is all really about.

Mentally and emotionally, women and women and men and men can have a deep and binding relationship, I know

that and so do you.

But it's the sex thing that's the issue here ... if you want to do it, then fine, but grapes and apples don't make

oranges.

Now whether gays are nuts is not for me to say (but I very much doubt it - I was not deranged), but in my opinion

it goes beyond the boundaries of what fits and therefore, it no longer interests me.

Btw, I've been behind the scenes and can quite clearly and unequivocally state that if ever there was prejudice

the gay camp is clearly the winner.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Nintii

[standalone09]

One thing is also children isnt it like protesting against live itself, at least where i come from a baby is considered the maximum of what you can and should "achieve" in life. :smile:

 

Or can we continue humanity with Science one day so that makes my thought obsolete?

Edited July 9, 2014 by standalone09

[HeyYou]

With surrogate mothers, artificial insemination, and a host of other medical procedures, we can actually render sex for reproduction obsolete today......