Is being gay a "disorder"?

[Reality]

Okay, I'm probably going to get shit for this considerng this forum is sensitive on the topic, but whatever, but from talking to my friend and thinking about it, it could be that being homosexual is a type of disorder. Not a mental disorder, but more of a bodily disorder.

If you think about it, males and females are naturally made to reproduce with each other to make offspring. A male and a male/a female and a female can't reproduce with one another. Having sexual intercourse to reproduce is the natural order of things.

It could be that, for example, gay males have an abundance of estrogen (the main female hormone) or gay females have an abundance of testosterone (the main male hormone) which is what my homophobic mum thinks. And gay men are stereotyped as being girly and having a lisp, just as lesbians are stereotyped as having butch voices and being manly. I know that these charactaristics aren't present on all homosexuals, but stereotypes come from somewhere, you have to admit, and you can't deny some homosexuals have these charactaristics.

What do you think?

Note: I have nothing against homosexuality. I actually support gay marriages, and I'm sorry if this offends you if you are homosexual.

[Whisper]

the fact of the matter is thousands of studies have been done and although the majority point to it not being a conscious choice its still very unclear if its nature, nurture, or a combination of the two. Nobody know's if its different for males then females or if the same factors effect both equally

there are 6.8 billion people on the planet by 2050 they expect that to jump to 8.9
for all we know its natures version of population control
-shrug-


It's not hurting anyone
So I don't get what the big deal is

and no it is NOT a disorder
we have a tendency to classify anything outside of a strict set of rules for conduct as disorders which as a so called advanced and civilized society is a pathetic statement indeed

[MoveAlong]

Being gay may very well be a mental disorder, in which instead of wanting an opposite-sex partner, in which to reproduce with, the brain is hardwired the wrong way, so that they are attracted to the same sex.

But this may not all be bad. Nature could have made these couples so that they could take care of children who have been abandoned by their regular couples (adoption).

It could also be nature's way of population control (see cody^)

But a disorder is looked at as a purely bad term.

[Reality]

I'm not really using the term "disorder" as a negative term, if I wanted to do that I'd have to be homophobic and I would have put something more derogatory. And I don't want to get really PC about it either. The population control sounds like a really good theory, though.

[redcar]

Homosexuality is something that people still dont fully understand and until then it will be called a disorder, unnatural, an illness and so on... but whatever it is, I still like guys. :)

[Sapphire]

No, it isn't a disorder. It is a natural occurrence and is found across many species.

[Zazu]

the fact of the matter is thousands of studies have been done and although the majority point to it not being a conscious choice its still very unclear if its nature, nurture, or a combination of the two. Nobody know's if its different for males then females or if the same factors effect both equally

there are 6.8 billion people on the planet by 2050 they expect that to jump to 8.9
for all we know its natures version of population control
-shrug-


It's not hurting anyone
So I don't get what the big deal is

and no it is NOT a disorder
we have a tendency to classify anything outside of a strict set of rules for conduct as disorders which as a so called advanced and civilized society is a pathetic statement indeed

Completely agree with this.

I don't see it as a disorder either, it's something which is perfectly normal.

[Bougainvillea]

No, it isn't a disorder. It is a natural occurrence and is found across many species.

Like monkeys?

[Atonement]

Like monkeys?

Like:

Black swans
Gulls
Mallards
Penguins
Amazon Dolphin
American Bison
Bonobo and other apes
Bottlenose Dolphins
Elephants
Giraffes
Humans
Japanese Macaque
Lions
Polecat
Sheep
Spotted Hyena
Dragonflies
Fruit flies
Lizards

Yes, for this to be called a disorder, its a disorder that breachs the animal-human gap.

[Spin]

I read somewhere that there's something in homosexual mens' brains that are like straight womens', and vise versa for homosexual women. Also, I would like to bring up the point I made in the "Same-Sex Marriage" thread. ALL men's g-spots are in their ass which causes pleasure, and we all know how gay men have sex, no need to go into detail. So why would God put that there if he didn't make it so two men to be together? So basically, homosexuality is perfectly natural.

[Bougainvillea]

Whoa. You just listed all the animals on earth. :)
I guess Black Widows are lesbians then

And Spin, isn't that the prostate gland. It's for certain types of hormones.

[Atonement]

Spin, I have a few problems with your post...

A. There are many men that don't have anal sex, thus, is it wrong not to and still be homosexual thus ignoring "nature's" male g-spot?

B. The female g-spot is the urethral sponge which is a cluster of vessels that engorge during sexual arousal.

C. The male "g-spot" is the prostate gland which helps produce semen. And ALL men's "g-spots" are not located in the ass. They are located outside the ass around the urethra.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Apparently its part of the human genome. We are still trying to crack the genome but we havent gotten to this supposed gay gene. It seems likely though that it could be genetics, but we'll see.

[INFERNO]

I read somewhere that there's something in homosexual mens' brains that are like straight womens', and vise versa for homosexual women. Also, I would like to bring up the point I made in the "Same-Sex Marriage" thread. ALL men's g-spots are in their ass which causes pleasure, and we all know how gay men have sex, no need to go into detail. So why would God put that there if he didn't make it so two men to be together? So basically, homosexuality is perfectly natural.

I believe you're referring to the study by LaVey in 1995 or so. It was a ground-breaking study but it had numerous flaws, some of which if you read his actual paper, he does highlight a few times.

The male g-spot is an area meant for producing and secreting various biochemicals. The fact that is causes pleasure is somewhat of a by-product.

Apparently its part of the human genome. We are still trying to crack the genome but we havent gotten to this supposed gay gene. It seems likely though that it could be genetics, but we'll see.

The human genome has been mapped out already. Current research using it is still trying to determine what each "part" does but to say we're still trying to crack it is wrong as it has already been mapped out.

There probably isn't one gay gene, if anything, it'd be a combination of genes.

Okay, I'm probably going to get shit for this considerng this forum is sensitive on the topic, but whatever, but from talking to my friend and thinking about it, it could be that being homosexual is a type of disorder. Not a mental disorder, but more of a bodily disorder.

If you think about it, males and females are naturally made to reproduce with each other to make offspring. A male and a male/a female and a female can't reproduce with one another. Having sexual intercourse to reproduce is the natural order of things.

It could be that, for example, gay males have an abundance of estrogen (the main female hormone) or gay females have an abundance of testosterone (the main male hormone) which is what my homophobic mum thinks. And gay men are stereotyped as being girly and having a lisp, just as lesbians are stereotyped as having butch voices and being manly. I know that these charactaristics aren't present on all homosexuals, but stereotypes come from somewhere, you have to admit, and you can't deny some homosexuals have these charactaristics.

Research has found quite a few differences amongst heterosexual and homosexual males and females but they do not appear in all people. But you are correct, some homosexuals do have those characteristics, although the issue to me is how much of it is due to nurture and how much is due to nature as there is plenty of evidence for both sides.

I would not call it a disorder by any means because it occurs in many organisms, doesn't cause harm to the person who has it nor to others, etc... . It may violate some people's beliefs or cultures so since it is outside of this nice little circle it gets dubbed a disorder by some.

What I find interesting though is the counter to this, that is, if some believe homosexuality is a disorder, then what of heterosexuality? I view sexual orientation is being on a continuum so if heterosexuality and homosexuality are at the extreme ends, and if one end is considered a disorder, then should the other end then also be a disorder? Many may say it is not but why is it not a disorder then? Is it because people who may be against homosexuality are in fact heterosexuality and they don't wish to view themselves as a disordered group also?

[mrp1221]

it's perfectly normal
don't let anyon tell you different

[ThUnDeR]

of corse its not a disorder

[Skittle Flavored]

Ok my view on things.

I see homosexuality as one of three things.

One: A situationaly brought up thing. By this, I give myself as an example. When i was fairly young, i was introduced to the world of sex. Forcefully mind you, but introduced. And it was with a male. So through my life, I've been seeing this as a normal and natural thing. So situationaly, i was turned gay.

Two: A born into thing. This is when someone is just..Born gay. There's really no other way to explain it. Same sex to them is very entertaining, and they enjoy it.

Three: An exploitation/exaggeration. This I've seen first hand. Men pretending to be gay to pick up chicks. Or, something I've personally experienced myself, an exaggeration. Personally, i found out that the more feminine i acted and the "gayer" i looked, the more friends I'd have. That wasn't the true me, but that was the acted me.

I personally do not believe in gay marriage. I don't believe that all the time, a "gay" person is gay. That's just my view.

[Death]

That's actually an interesting question. I'm not really sure to be honest. No offense to homosexuals or anything but we were obviously not designed for homosexuality (we also cannot reproduce from it) and thus it is not what one would percieve as the 'normal' thing to do (though many do it - they are just not biologically supposed to, if you get my meaning) although I have no problem with homosexuality and I too, support gay/lesbian marriages. But to call it a 'disorder', not really sure, it could well be since I've heard that some people 'grow out of it'.

[INFERNO]

of corse its not a disorder

Problem... you're missing evidence for your argument and a premise for your argument.

That's actually an interesting question. I'm not really sure to be honest. No offense to homosexuals or anything but we were obviously not designed for homosexuality (we also cannot reproduce from it) and thus it is not what one would percieve as the 'normal' thing to do (though many do it - they are just not biologically supposed to, if you get my meaning) although I have no problem with homosexuality and I too, support gay/lesbian marriages. But to call it a 'disorder', not really sure, it could well be since I've heard that some people 'grow out of it'.

But what about when there are parthenogenetic organisms, both invertebrate and vertebrate, that is, where a female reproduces without the need of a male as described HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis) and HERE (brief, simple explanation) (http://home.pcisys.net/~dlblanc/articles/Parthenogenesis.php)? If the cards are played right, a male can result and it can mate with the female also. Or, a female is produced and resorts back to mating with another female. The results are that the progeny are not always going to be clones of each other nor of their mother (i.e. for automictic parthenogenesis).

[MoveAlong]

I'm not really using the term "disorder" as a negative term, if I wanted to do that I'd have to be homophobic and I would have put something more derogatory.

No, I'm just saying that gay people are probably offended by it being referred to as a disorder, since many people think of it as such a negative term.

[Spin]

Spin, I have a few problems with your post...

A. There are many men that don't have anal sex, thus, is it wrong not to and still be homosexual thus ignoring "nature's" male g-spot?

B. The female g-spot is the urethral sponge which is a cluster of vessels that engorge during sexual arousal.

C. The male "g-spot" is the prostate gland which helps produce semen. And ALL men's "g-spots" are not located in the ass. They are located outside the ass around the urethra.

A. No.

C. Every male has a g-spot which is actually called an a-spot, heh, in their ass. http://www.askmen.com/dating/vanessa/23_love_secrets.html
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2246.html And yeah there's also one where you stated.

[ShatteredWings]

Gayness is only a mental disorder if almost every species of remotely intelligent life can have the exact same mental disorder.

This is EXTREMELY unlikely

[L]

No, it isn't a disorder. It is a natural occurrence and is found across many species.

well, i'm not homophobic or anything (in fact i'm bi myself) but disorders are a natural occurrence found across many species as well. i honestly tend to think being gay is a disorder, but the word disorder seems so negative. the hormones in teenagers can make them feel attracted to the same sex, which is not a disorder, but if it goes farther then that, then i suppose it is. but really... disorder is the wrong word. disorder usually refers to something that is bad, but being gay is not bad at all. so its... disorder, with lack of a better word. :what:

[Bluearmy]

Well sterile people are said to have a disorder, or disease because they can't reproduce. So I guess you could also call homosexuality a disorder as well; since their methods fail to produce offspring. Though that is a rather vague link, it makes sense to me.

I have a stupid question as well. Since homosexuality is suppose to be in someone's genes, and genes get passed down through reproduction... Won't the superiority fashionably homosexual race die out because their genes are no longer being passed down?

I am just wondering...


But this may not all be bad. Nature could have made these couples so that they could take care of children who have been abandoned by their regular couples (adoption).

I hope you were joking...

[Rutherford The Brave]

I hope you were joking...

What? I really don't see anything wrong with what he said. I don't believe nature played a role in it, but when heterosexuals abuse their ability to reproduce often more than not Homosexual parents prove to be better.

[Donkey]

No, I'm just saying that gay people are probably offended by it being referred to as a disorder, since many people think of it as such a negative term.
Perhaps.

Research has seen that homosexual's brains have more aspects of a woman's than a heterosexual does, and the mother of children usually take up the parenting role optionally more than men.

[Sapphire]

well, i'm not homophobic or anything (in fact i'm bi myself) but disorders are a natural occurrence found across many species as well. i honestly tend to think being gay is a disorder, but the word disorder seems so negative. the hormones in teenagers can make them feel attracted to the same sex, which is not a disorder, but if it goes farther then that, then i suppose it is. but really... disorder is the wrong word. disorder usually refers to something that is bad, but being gay is not bad at all. so its... disorder, with lack of a better word. :what:I see where you are coming from but I strongly disagree. Disorders are maladaptive conditions and interfere with normal functioning. Homosexuality doesn't harm or impair anyone and as such goes against the very definition of the term "disorder".

Well sterile people are said to have a disorder, or disease because they can't reproduce. So I guess you could also call homosexuality a disorder as well; since their methods fail to produce offspring. Though that is a rather vague link, it makes sense to me.That is far too vague a link IMO. The logic behind it is flawed as well because following it through would lead to post-menopausal women being deemed of having a disorder.

I have a stupid question as well. Since homosexuality is suppose to be in someone's genes, and genes get passed down through reproduction... Won't the superiority fashionably homosexual race die out because their genes are no longer being passed down?As of yet, there is no recognised "gay gene" and I find it highly unlikely there even is one. If there were a gene that dictates sexuality then you wouldn't get gay people being born into families where homosexuality was previously absent going as far back as 3 generations.

[INFERNO]

Well sterile people are said to have a disorder, or disease because they can't reproduce. So I guess you could also call homosexuality a disorder as well; since their methods fail to produce offspring. Though that is a rather vague link, it makes sense to me.

I don't follow your link. Homosexuals (male at least) cannot reproduce because they lack the proper organ and organ systems. A woman who is sterile has all the proper components just something isn't working properly. The woman has the chance to give birth, just something happened that impedes it whereas homosexual men never have that chance.

But there's a hole in your argument: homosexual women. They can get donated sperm and through that, they can give birth.

But there is another hole, one that is much greater than the one I mentioned above. Women would eventually have this disorder just through age.

I find that link to be extremely ambiguous and vague with flawed logic.


I have a stupid question as well. Since homosexuality is suppose to be in someone's genes, and genes get passed down through reproduction... Won't the superiority fashionably homosexual race die out because their genes are no longer being passed down?

Well... it's not that simple. For one, there would be multiple genes needed to eventually result in homosexuality. Two, the genes can be passed down properly yet the person won't be a homosexual if the proper biochemicals cannot be produced. Let's say gene A is meant to make protein A. You get gene A, however, if the microbiological processes are impeded in some way, then you may get protein A but it may be mutated, the actual gene A may be mutated or eventually protein A may not be produced or other possibilities.

Perhaps.

Research has seen that homosexual's brains have more aspects of a woman's than a heterosexual does, and the mother of children usually take up the parenting role optionally more than men.

I believe you're referring to LaVey's study in around 1995-1997. That study is massively flawed and the problems of directionality and causality are not addressed, which are the very important questions.

[Sapphire]

Another hole in the argument: gay men can use a surrogate mother to have children.

[Bluearmy]

One would be a physical defect, and the other a mental defect. Unable to reproduce, and unwilling to reproduce.

[Sapphire]

One would be a physical defect, and the other a mental defect. Unable to reproduce, and unwilling to reproduce.
So you think it's ok to deem all post-menopausal women as having a disorder?
Homosexuals clearly aren't incapable of having children because they can (and do) have sex with members of the opposite sex.

[Donkey]

I believe you're referring to LaVey's study in around 1995-1997. That study is massively flawed and the problems of directionality and causality are not addressed, which are the very important questions.

I believe there has been more study since with the same findings. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

[Sapphire]

I believe there has been more study since with the same findings. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
That doesn't outline any causes or effects. What were you hoping to illustrate with this?

[INFERNO]

I believe there has been more study since with the same findings. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

That link shows nothing really. All it outlines is that there is some similarity, however, the issue of directionality and causality (the things that are important) are not even mentioned. The fact that they have similarities though is meaningless so the only thing I can see that you've shown correctly is that there is newer research on it. Aside from that, you haven't shown anything else.

[Donkey]

That doesn't outline any causes or effects. What were you hoping to illustrate with this?
The similarity between gay and women's brains, and how if what I was talking about before was true, that would make sense. There is no evidence to show causes or effects as little has been done on it.

That link shows nothing really. All it outlines is that there is some similarity, however, the issue of directionality and causality (the things that are important) are not even mentioned. The fact that they have similarities though is meaningless so the only thing I can see that you've shown correctly is that there is newer research on it. Aside from that, you haven't shown anything else.
That was what I was trying to show...

[Bluearmy]

So you think it's ok to deem all post-menopausal women as having a disorder?
Homosexuals clearly aren't incapable of having children because they can (and do) have sex with members of the opposite sex.

No I don't. That is a natural occurrence because they get to old.

Homosexuality does not produce children. Yes, homosexuals can have sex with someone of the opposite sex. But if it really isn't a choice and someone is born as a homosexual. Then they weren't intended for reproduction because they naturally aren't suppose to want that. Therefor something that causes you to be unable to reproduce thanks to mental factors, should still count as a disorder.

[Sapphire]

Homosexuality does not produce children. Yes, homosexuals can have sex with someone of the opposite sex. But if it really isn't a choice and someone is born as a homosexual. Then they weren't intended for reproduction because they naturally aren't suppose to want that. Therefor something that causes you to be unable to reproduce thanks to mental factors, should still count as a disorder.
Your theory about homosexuality being a disorder because gay people are born gay would only be valid if it were proved to be true. At the current time there is inconclusive evidence as to the cause - sexuality could just as easily be caused by experiences in early childhood - so you could very easily be barking up the wrong tree.

[Bluearmy]

I was just presenting a theory. I have my own theory on the matter about how someone ends up a homosexual. It's still under construction though..

YES YES, I know there is outstanding evidence, but there is always compelling evidence against anything I think.

[YourFriend]

I get offended when someone uses the word disorder for it, but i don't mind, let them think what they want to.

It is NOT a disorder.

[Sapphire]

I was just presenting a theory. I have my own theory on the matter about how someone ends up a homosexual. It's still under construction though..

YES YES, I know there is outstanding evidence, but there is always compelling evidence against anything I think.
If you acknowledge that then why do you so vehemently assert that it's a disorder because people are born gay?

It doesn't make sense.

[Rutherford The Brave]

I was just presenting a theory. I have my own theory on the matter about how someone ends up a homosexual. It's still under construction though..

YES YES, I know there is outstanding evidence, but there is always compelling evidence against anything I think.

Its not a theory its a hypothesis. Which is a guess, you should never guess.

[Bluearmy]

I was just presenting an argument so all types of ideals could be discussed and countered.

[INFERNO]

That was what I was trying to show...

OK... .


Homosexuality does not produce children. Yes, homosexuals can have sex with someone of the opposite sex. But if it really isn't a choice and someone is born as a homosexual. Then they weren't intended for reproduction because they naturally aren't suppose to want that. Therefor something that causes you to be unable to reproduce thanks to mental factors, should still count as a disorder.

Nice argument but there are two massive flaws. First, what is your evidence for why they are born homosexual? You've given the conclusion that it is but no evidence, no premise, no argument for it. If it is an assumption, then you still need a reason for assuming it. Second, what is your evidence for it not being a choice? Why can it not be due in part to both a choice and biological? There's no real argument for any of that which you have presented.

For your last line, what about people who just don't want to have sex? Suppose everything works so if they wanted to then they would but if they just don't want to, then is that also a disorder?


I was just presenting a theory. I have my own theory on the matter about how someone ends up a homosexual. It's still under construction though..

Well when you wish to say it, then it can support your post I quoted above a great deal. Until then, well it's a set of ideas with no argument, no premise, no evidence supporting it.


YES YES, I know there is outstanding evidence, but there is always compelling evidence against anything I think.

But you shouldn't let that stop you.

Its not a theory its a hypothesis. Which is a guess, you should never guess.

Scientifically speaking, a hypothesis is not simply a guess pulled out of thin air. There is some reason behind it, ideally something with previous evidence to back it up.

But this is assuming that T-7089 meant a scientific theory and not the layman term of theory that people toss around.

[ocguy]

Not really. But I do believe that there's a gene mutation that results in homosexuality.
I'd tell you the truth. If I have a son that is born with that mutation, I'd like to change that. But with a daughter, I'd be fine.

[Sapphire]

I'd tell you the truth. If I have a son that is born with that mutation, I'd like to change that. But with a daughter, I'd be fine.
Why would it be ok if you're daughter were a lesbian but not if your son was gay?

[peaceloverugby]

I agree with Sapphire on the above post.

As may have been previously stated (I really don't have time to read every single post), homosexuality can only be a disorder if race is a disorder. You can't choose or change your race or your sexual orientation.

[ShatteredWings]

Don't bother carole.. plenty of people are like that. my mom wouldn't mind having a gay son, but her daughter can't possibly be a lesbian. Yes it's reveresed in that case, but people get weird stereotypes on that topic

I believe there has been more study since with the same findings. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
Okay?
So there's no real evidence in the article
just this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/06/080617151845-large.jpg
I'm not even seeing the alignment here... while they're obvoiuslly different, i'm not seeing how gay man = straight woman and gay woman = straight man
also
. The researchers analyzed the brains of 90 subjects
Only 90? Is that really a fair study?

[INFERNO]

Not really. But I do believe that there's a gene mutation that results in homosexuality.
I'd tell you the truth. If I have a son that is born with that mutation, I'd like to change that. But with a daughter, I'd be fine.

So you think it's just one single gene mutation? If you look up anything on developmental genetics, there are numerous genes for various parts of the brain. But I don't exactly understand why it's fine to have a lesbian daughter but not a homosexual son.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/06/080617151845-large.jpg
I'm not even seeing the alignment here... while they're obvoiuslly different, i'm not seeing how gay man = straight woman and gay woman = straight man


One way to analyze or interpret these brain-imaging results is to refer to either Brodmann's and von Economo's areas (probably also others). If you don't know what they are then a very brief explanation of them is that those two researchers labelled different areas of the brain with different letters (Brodmann) and letters (von Economo). As time progressed, they both got updated so Brodmann's areas would also contain some letters. The rationale for these schematics is that it provides a way to see where different areas of the brain are in different people. You can find the actual area maps online yourself.

But for your second question, the brain-imaging results show some similarities amongst the groups. Of course one huge problem is answering the questions of directionality and causality.


Only 90? Is that really a fair study?

You can answer your question through basic statistics and applying various statistical theorems. Although the sample size may seem small, you need to look at how consistent the results are. Generally, you'll start off with a smaller sample and if your paper gets some success, then you can get more funding to have a larger sample size.

[ShatteredWings]

Study size 90 people
Let's assume that they picked equal groups of straight men straight women gay men and gay women...which is 22.5

We have half-people in the groups? Whatever, let's round to 23 people in a group.
For all we know, this "majority" could be something along the lines of 6/23 people fit that rather sterotypical pattern, and everyone's all over the place.. or the "majority" being 12/23 -- about 52%


Yeah this sounds like a numbers game, but I'm really hesitant to beleive a study that works with such a small pool (if it was a study over 1000 people, it might be more convincing) and doesn't give all the statistics.

They're not telling key parts.... have to wonder.

[Sapphire]

Without a bigger sample and an investigation into the cause/effects then it's basically irrelevant to the discussion.