BF2S Forums Homosexuality may be a mental disorder?

Seriously, this is D/ST.

I think homosexuality should be legitimized now if every, due to the population problem. It's a mental disease, sure. But the thing is, 2 homosexuals can't produce offspring, so they're part of the solution! In fact, I think homosexuality will increase as a natural reaction to the growing global population.

I don't have a problem with them or with them marrying or continuing to reproduce in whatever way they will, I just like like to call a spade a spade.

Macbeth wrote:

I don't have a problem with them or with them marrying or continuing to reproduce in whatever way they will, I just like like to call a spade a spade.

But that's not nice

The OP theory = fail and here's why

1. you presuppose the myth of monogamy. ie ozzie and harriet sitting in a tree surrounded by a white picket fence, breeding to get their 2.5 kids or whatever the average is.

2. you neglect to consider that other apes are not monogamous, in fact, other apes have harems and yes one man can impregnate hundreds or thousands of women. There are other nice biological factors to prove this like women synching up their menses so that they are all fertile at the same time and can give birth at the same time. and it seems that there is a higher percentage of mormons who are gay, if so, I'd say that its a result of polygamy or polygamy was the result of the prevalence of gayness, either way or both.

3. if not all men are necessary for breeding and perhaps in the distant past these unnecessary males were precluded from breeding because only dominant males got to breed, then don't you suppose the gayness was bred into the species because guys just have to nut.

4. and to show the point, it has been reported that the youngest male in a family is the most likely to be gay, makes sense since the breeding responsibilities are taken care of by the time the youngest is born

5. and lastly, may be our society has it all wrong, may be the ancient Greeks had it right, may be its the gay guys that are supposed to be in the military, to protect the breeders.

Just because gays don't breed does not mean that they are not functional benefit to society.
Op's like these are just a veiled invitation to have a (fill in the blank) bashing bitch session. Its nothing but a troll disguised as an OP. Total garbage.

1. I never mentioned monogamy.
2. Seriously this has nothing to do with monogamy. I have no idea where you got monogamy from.
3. Considering human evolution stalled out back were resources were infinite, to the average human being, an evolutionary culling wouldn't have been necessary. Aside from that the logic you are going by is that: Since only dominate non-homosexual males were allowed to reproduce, homosexuals started appearing so that the the non-breeding homosexuals could have something to sleep with? How in the hell does that make any sense to you, from an evolutionary or logical chicken-egg standpoint?
4. If homosexuality is an evolutionary tool to make sure we don't over populate wouldn't it have been more efficient for women to lose their ability to reproduce after 1 or 2 children, which just happens that a species wouldn't be able to survive long with a 1 or 2 birth rate per female and that there wouldn't be a reason to make sure a female stops popping out kids since humans hadn't made a major evolution jump since the time when there have been limitless resources._{at least for the scale of the first people}
5. Um well aside from each Greek city state having a different method of how they organized their armies, I don't recall a single one that sent only their homosexuals to go fight. 

Just because gays don't breed does not mean that they are not functional benefit to society.

I never mentioned whether they are a benefit to society or not.

You suck at reading comprehension. Your post is just shit disguised as knowledge. Reread the OP and try again.

More directly towards the OP I think is more a kind of urban sickness. I am hesitant to use "sickness" because of the prejudice against gays it implies, but as you stated if you presume at least one of the purposes of an animal is to continue its species then there is something wrong with them. Of course the exact same sentiment could also be expressed about suicidal people or anti-social people, and you will note all three of those groups are disproportionately likely to occur in urbanized settings - at least that we know about.

I don't think it's a built in population control, I just think it is a product of our animal brain's deep-rooted inability to cope with our increasingly social/unnatural world. Too many inherent contradictions within the social construct viewed against a purely logical/instinctual world.

Macbeth wrote:

I don't have a problem with them or with them marrying or continuing to reproduce in whatever way they will, I just like like to call a spade a spade.

I could just as easily make up a thread suggesting that all Christians have a mental illness because they're deluded into believing all manner of stories in the bible with no proof of their existence whatsoever, or whatever religion I choose. But I don't because it would just be an opinion piece.

I work in the field of mental illness as a support worker. Most mental illnesses consist of some form of delusion on reality, among a range of other symptoms. Homosexuals tend to be very real with what they're about, and have just as good or tenuous a grip on reality as any heterosexual or bisexual, or even asexual person.

So no, I don't believe homosexuality could be considered a mental illness.

Even the idea of sexuality that the typical straight person has in today's culture could hardly be considered normal when compared to natural impulses, the only difference is the practical result is more or less the same when considering straight people. I don't think it's so much of a stretch of the imagination to say that it is a subconscious reflection of living in such close proximity to thousands or even millions of your own kind, particularly when governed by such an arbitrary set of rules.

Well those comments are a little inciting but I understand and tend to agree with the sentiment.

People who have a mental illness at some point recognise this when it gets to an acute level, because it impacts upon their lives so severely that treatment is the only option.

I hardly think someone who's "severely" homosexual could be put into the same category at all.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

@ Diesel_dyk

I think the OP is certainly less offensive than saying gay people are by definition genetic trash, being apparently inferior to their straight alpha-male counterparts.

This of course ignoring the fact that your assumptions in relation to the OP are all a straw man arguments, for example he presupposed nothing about monogamy, you made that up completely.

The OP presupposes that all animals in the stock are necessary for breeding. Ants only have one queen. Lots of mammals use herding and only have one male progenitor. Just like ants, when you have a higher social order, the group benefits from the division of labor. not everyone has to breed to keep the species going, but everyone needs to work. You can't post an OP like that that assumes the social norms/social construct as biological facts and then complain that someone is pointing out the obvious assumption being made. I didn't use a straw man argument, I shredded the assumptions that his argument is founded on. This is a typical OP from MacBeth, he wants to talk about how homosexuality is a mental disease, not whether it is a mental disease. Which is why he squeals when someone shreds his argument. I debated MacBeth before more than once, and I can see where this one is going from a mile away. If you guys want a real debate on the homo issues, you need to stop assuming that the social order = biological facts.


@FM on your other post about the occurrence of homos in urbanized settings, are you trying to say that being a homo is the result of urban stress. If you are then you're assuming that the percentage of gay people has not been constant. I would want to see some proof on numbers before believing that the prevalence of gay people coming out in urban centers isn't due to the old saying that there is protection in numbers. Its true that being gay is more accepted today that it was 30 years ago, and it not hard to say that more people are coming out today because now its is safer to do so. That makes more logical sense that saying the stress of urban centers is turning people gay and equating being gay with suicide. Equating death/suicide/lack of breeding all presumes that gays are necessary to maintain the population. Well to put it really simply, they aren't necessary, and not being necessary for breeding does not = mental disorder. I'm sure that all the straight males out there would be more than happy to impregnate all the females that are necessary to keep the world populated with humans even if it meant a sacrifice of having to sleep with two, three or even ten different women. but therein lies the conflict with the idea of the social order. remember social order does not equal biological fact. Gays don't need to breed in order to support a biological population, they can contribute in other ways to make the species successful.


I tried to point out the obvious reasons that non-breeding gays might be beneficial to a biological population. There may very well be a biological reason for having gay people in the population which would mean that its a biological imperative and not a mental disease.

Anyway, go look up the DSM IV, homosexuality is not in there. Neither is any other sexual act where there are two consenting adults. If its not in the DSM, then its not a mental disease.

Macbeth wrote:

Read the whole thing before you respond

I've been meaning to get around to posting this for awhile.

So humans, like any other living things, aren't immortal and need to reproduce in order for the species to continue. Human beings reproduce sexually and have two distinct genders, male and female. Now in order to move reproduction along men and women have sexual drives towards the opposite gender.

Since sex is necessary for reproduction and a sexual drive is needed in order to perform sex as well as the fact that to our cavemen ancestors the concept of civilization and it's continuation was beyond their thinking, it is clear that having a sexual drive towards the opposite sex is as "right" as any instinct can be since man at his most basic and undeveloped form wouldn't have any other reason to perform sex if not for their instinctual inclination towards the other sex. 

Now since an attraction towards the other sex is basic, instinctual, and fundamental to human beings then wouldn't a person who has zero attraction to the other sex be in some way broken? Wouldn't not having the basic human programming be considered to be defective? If that's so how are homosexuality not a disorder?

Now bisexuality would makes sense by logic, if there is sexual attraction towards both genders than the instinctual attraction towards the opposite gender is still presented and the bisexual in question isn't violating the fundamental programming of humanity and life.

I believe that homosexuality isn't regarded, these days, as a mental disorder in order to satisfy political correctness as well as the ramifications that regarding all homosexuals as mentally damaged would produce.

Dude once you realize you are gay and accept it you will be much happier.

SenorToenails wrote:

Homosexuality is a part of nature.  I have a hard time believing it's a 'genetic defect' or 'mental disease' because of its appearance in such a wide variety of species.

The apearnace of it in differant species does not mean it is not a defect. I am not saying it is, jst saying this arguement is mute.