BF2S Forums Homosexuality may be a mental disorder?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

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.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/co … 515853.jpg

Nuh, this jellyfish is almost up there.

Edit: Actually there are few "living things" living in the sea that can "eat and shit" a new life for themselves. Some microscopic sea sausages (sorry can't remember out the real name right now) can produce themselves again and again.

Last edited by BLdw (2010-06-02 12:22:04)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What is a normal brain? If you assume there is not a normal brain, then their brains are messed up by default. If you assume a natural point of view to define a "normal brain" then the most basic requirements must be 1) self-preservation and 2) reproduction. They fail one of those tests.

If I assume there is no normal brain, then nothing is messed up by default.  Regardless, man does not understand enough about the brain to even really say what normal is.  But that's not a discussion I'm really qualified to be in, so I will go with your assertion.

If self-preservation and reproduction are the two benchmarks needed to ensure a normal brain, then social animals are pretty much all 'abnormal'.  Altruism in animals is often counter to self-preservation, and many, many animals display altruistic behavior. 

What about animals that slaughter their young?  Or the young of others in the same species?  That is also counter to reproduction...more abnormal brains?

Pug wrote:

As far as "homos in nature" goes, humans are one of two species that use sex as recreation.  Anyone want to guess the other species?  (Ps. "My uncle" isn't correct either)

Dolphins, and they will have group sex regardless of gender.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-06-02 12:21:14)

Saying homosexuality is a mental disorder is stretching it a bit ... a genetic condition is more like it ...

Call it whatever you like really, you are born gay, lesbian or transexual or whatever and nothing can change that ...

SenorToenails wrote:

If self-preservation and reproduction are the two benchmarks needed to ensure a normal brain, then social animals are pretty much all 'abnormal'.  Altruism in animals is often counter to self-preservation, and many, many animals display altruistic behavior.

Society is extremely abnormal. "Altruism" as considered from a very rudimentary level is the exact opposite from rationality.

SenorToenails wrote:

What about animals that slaughter their young?  Or the young of others in the same species?  That is also counter to reproduction...more abnormal brains?

Counter to but not completely countering. Otherwise they would have already died out.

Shahter wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That's an exceptional normal state. I never said messed up is bad. It's just messed up.

good, bad, normal, messed up - it's all relative. it's progress and improvement what actually matters. now, i certainly wouldn't place marriage or homosexuality among the signs of humanity progress, but i think it's about time we stopped judging ourselves relative to our pre-historic ancestors who were hanging from the trees all the same.

The first step to progress is calling a spade a spade.

nlsme1 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Saying homosexuality is a mental disorder is stretching it a bit ... a genetic condition is more like it ...

Call it whatever you like really, you are born gay, lesbian or transexual or whatever and nothing can change that ...

I beleive people are a product of their environment AS much as they are genes.

You may of course believe that and it's also partially true but not when it comes to sexuality ... and some other stuff ... interesting material and enough for several threads imo ...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

"I know you're on a city hating kick lately"
no

There is no way to say the rate of gays / thousand pop has changed over time because that kind of data is impossible to gather. If it was as prevalent as it is now though, I think it is a pretty fair assumption to say that we would have known about it. Regardless of the social stigma there are a LOT of gay people now, a large enough percentage that I would think would have let themselves be known to some degree. If the homosexual tendencies were repressed to the point that they got married/had kids, well so far as this thread is concerned that means they aren't so "sick" as to be unable to pass on their genes.

So really the count of out-of-the-closet homosexuals is the count that is important, because they are the ones that are not going to be passing on their genes with certainty.

It was obviously a big enough issue 'back in the day' that it was specifically mentioned and a law was created against it in the Bible.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

If self-preservation and reproduction are the two benchmarks needed to ensure a normal brain, then social animals are pretty much all 'abnormal'.  Altruism in animals is often counter to self-preservation, and many, many animals display altruistic behavior.

Society is extremely abnormal. "Altruism" as considered from a very rudimentary level is the exact opposite from rationality.

Abnormal?  For social creatures, creation of a society seems to follow.  Animals have packs, herds, prides, etc...  If you view everything through the lens of absolute efficiency toward those two goals you mentioned, just about everything is 'abnormal'.

Not society like we have it today. Small groups work towards those two goals very well.

I also don't have much issue as viewing just about everything as abnormal.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

What about animals that slaughter their young?  Or the young of others in the same species?  That is also counter to reproduction...more abnormal brains?

Counter to but not completely countering. Otherwise they would have already died out.

Yet you ignore the question of whether that is caused by an abnormal brain...  Homosexuality doesn't harm the longevity of the species either, since those that display it are still around.  It's a meaningless observation, that's all.

Homosexuality does harm the longevity of the species if in great enough number. Eating a certain percentage of offspring isn't the same as never making offspring. Homosexuals don't create 3 children and eat 2 or something.

JohnG@lt wrote:

It was obviously a big enough issue 'back in the day' that it was specifically mentioned and a law was created against it in the Bible.

I mentioned the time frame of America as an example.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It was obviously a big enough issue 'back in the day' that it was specifically mentioned and a law was created against it in the Bible.

I mentioned the time frame of America as an example.

Then you've built yourself a straw man because there are obviously no statistics to prove you wrong, nor to prove yourself right.

That is a straw man how? It is unprovable either way because of a lack of data. That has nothing to do with a straw man.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Diesel_Dyk wrote:

The OP presupposes that all animals in the stock are necessary for breeding.

No he didn't. Then later you laughably twisted my argument into presupposing the same thing.

Diesel_Dyk wrote:

Which is why he squeals when someone shreds his argument.

I dunno what you think you did, but you were far, far from "shredding" his argument.

You wrote "you laughably twisted my argument into presupposing the same thing"

First of all, you're a troll
Second, you're a Mod and supposed to be an example, so stop trolling and say something intelligent
Third, you and the OP are making the same assumptions. So, sure I'm going to hold your nose to the steaming pile just like a bad puppy. and just like a bad puppy you don't even want to look at it.

And before you spout off again
Yes, you are MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.... no no, allow me to repeat, you are making assumptions, hope the reality finally sets in.

here may be this will help with your semantic argument
definition of assumption "4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition:"
definition of presuppose "1. to take for granted; assume"

You're making assumption, and yes they are unstated, hence the word assumption, but nevertheless you and the OP are making them. and yes I am stating then directly too you to give you the opportunity to address them intelligently. Go ahead and try to explain your assumptions because you are assuming that social norms are biological facts. since mental disorders can have a biological basis and some people here say its genetic, but genetics are also behind traits that a good for a biological population.... so a genetic link with gayness doesn't prove anything and that means that you have to prove up your assumption that social norms that label gays as being bad for the population are actually biological facts. I don't think you can do it... so you just want to gloss over the assumptions you're making and get right down to discussing what causes the gayness mental disorder... which of course assumes the OP statements as being true that being gay is a mental disorder.... which is really just an invitation to a gay bash thread.

The short story is.... arguing that social norms dictate that gays are bad for society is a totally different argument from the argument that being gay is a mental disorder based on some biological disorder or that gays are bad for the biological population. Stop confusing the two, seperate those issues and you'll go a long way to understanding my post.



Because this OP is garbage and its obvious that its headed into a heading butting competition, with a Mod of all things. I am just going to say that this is my last word on this OP, I'm going to avoid the head butting and leave it at that. This is a typical OP&post that gets repeated over and over and over again and turns DST into a trashy troll-fest. I made my points and hopefully DST gets fixed for the better.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That's an exceptional normal state. I never said messed up is bad. It's just messed up.

good, bad, normal, messed up - it's all relative. it's progress and improvement what actually matters. now, i certainly wouldn't place marriage or homosexuality among the signs of humanity progress, but i think it's about time we stopped judging ourselves relative to our pre-historic ancestors who were hanging from the trees all the same.

The first step to progress is calling a spade a spade.

if only it was as simple as that.
nature commits no errors; right and wrong are human categories. (c)

Shahter wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Shahter wrote:

good, bad, normal, messed up - it's all relative. it's progress and improvement what actually matters. now, i certainly wouldn't place marriage or homosexuality among the signs of humanity progress, but i think it's about time we stopped judging ourselves relative to our pre-historic ancestors who were hanging from the trees all the same.

The first step to progress is calling a spade a spade.

if only it was as simple as that.
nature commits no errors; right and wrong are human categories. (c)

Again I didn't say it is bad. Saying homosexuality is abnormal is a fairly uncontroversial statement. People assume that mental disorder means bad, and that's just not true.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The first step to progress is calling a spade a spade.

if only it was as simple as that.
nature commits no errors; right and wrong are human categories. (c)

Again I didn't say it is bad. Saying homosexuality is abnormal is a fairly uncontroversial statement. People assume that mental disorder means bad, and that's just not true.

no, man, you can't call it "disorder" meaning it in a good way. otherwise you would have opened the nastiest can of worms imaginable. i hereby call religion a mental disorder. patriotism too. charity - the same. where would you draw the line?