I utilize my Facebook page for two purposes - to post pictures of my daughter, and so i can learn about my friends, their cultures, etc etc, as well as engaging in various debates.

Anyway, a few weeks ago, I posted that video of the dude that was raised by two lesbians. I am sure most of you have probably seen it, but here is the link if you have not (http://front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-baby-and-this-is-what-they-got/#.Ttff2KJJm1_.facebook). The video in and of itself proves nothing, as would a video of a serial rapist raised by a homosexual couple. I posted it more so that my extremely intolerant family might see some faint glimmer that shows that homosexuals are not horrible people. Anyway, I digress.

My cousin's husband, who in my opinion is a very open-minded, level headed guy (not part of my immediate family who are the bigoted individuals I spoke of), sent me a private message. It was pretty long, but one of the points he made was that there was a lot of research that points to individuals being homosexual due to a some kind of chemical imbalance or genetic mutation in the brain. His wife (my cousin) apparently works with a lot of researchers, and most of the funding to prove/disprove this theory has been blocked because it basically opens two huge cans of worms. One, it would show that homosexuality is absolutely not a choice, which would be detrimental to religious fundamentalist. Two, it would then classify homosexuality as a disease, which would be very insensitive to the homosexual community.

Beyond this discussion, I have absolutely no evidence to back any of this up. More than anything, I am curious to how people would react IF in fact this was true.

1. Would proof of homosexuality being a disease at all change your perception of homosexuals?

2. Would proof of homosexuality being a disease at all change your opinion on various rights (marriage, adoption, other??)

3. Would you support research that was aimed at "curing" homosexuality?

For the record, I don't really know what to think. I am always up for intellectual discussion/debate on any subject. Thanks for any feedback, and sorry if this has ever/already been discussed (search function didn't bring up much).

12/24/2011 8:01:21 PM

Every aspect of humanity is due to chemicals, from religiosity to political leanings.

Of course homosexuality is due to some biological or chemical source (in most cases).

Whether this is a disease or pathology is a different question. The latest DSM doesn't consider the "condition" of functionalithomosexuality a disorder.

Will this convince people? No. it just boils down to being a decent human being to people who do something that affects you in no way.

12/24/2011 8:48:53 PM

Consider that we don't condemn autistics, epileptics, or synæsthetics because of how they were born (although the more trollish among us, including many a fellow autistic, do have lulz at their expense); just as accommodations need to be made for them, so do they need to be made for homosexuals, although in this case they largely consist of ending discrimination and violence against them and no longer assuming that in a romantically- or sexually-linked pair one is female and one is male.

Also I think the term is "disorder" rather than "disease": Think of a disease as something you can "catch" and possibly get "cured" from; disorders may merely be "treated" or "accommodated."

12/24/2011 8:57:27 PM

I think that homosexuality is not "normal" in the sense that it's normal to be, say, an introvert or extrovert. On the other hand, it's not like being a sociopath. We shouldn't relatively equate it with pedophilia for reasons that should be obvious. Maybe a good way to look at it would be analogous to, say, OCD. It's something that we recognize, generally doesn't hurt anyone else, and as long as it's doing no harm, we can pretty much focus on helping the individual and those around him/her understand it and work with it.

Quote :

" Whether this is a disease or pathology is a different question. The latest DSM doesn't consider the "condition" of functionalithomosexuality a disorder. "

I think that's probably due to political/cultural sensitivity.

[Edited on December 24, 2011 at 9:09 PM. Reason : ^ right. ]

12/24/2011 9:06:22 PM

Although the DSM removed even "Ego-dystonic homosexuality" in 1987, shades of it remain, but it's all about distress over one's sexual orientation rather than the orientation itself: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ego-dystonic_sexual_orientation

12/24/2011 9:23:44 PM

Quote :

"A disease is an abnormal condition affecting the body of an organism."

I'd say there is nothing abnormal about homosexuality so classifying it as a disease is just retarded.

12/24/2011 9:26:03 PM

Quote :

"I'd say there is nothing abnormal about homosexuality so classifying it as a disease is just retarded."

I think that's the whole premise of the discussion. What is a generally accepted definition of normal? If scientists could isolate XYZ gene that is different in homosexuals, and say (for instance) this gene only showed up in 10% of all humans, then I think it's safe to say this is abnormal.

And the big question I really have, is should we utilize money to try and treat it/fix it/etc?

12/24/2011 10:13:19 PM

There is a gene linked to left handedness, which about 10% of the world is. Lets cure those diseased bastards.

12/24/2011 10:19:29 PM

^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_against_left-handed_people#Forced_conversion

12/24/2011 10:55:37 PM

RIGHT POWER!!!!!!

12/24/2011 11:02:52 PM

Quote :

"Consider that we don't condemn autistics, epileptics, or synæsthetics because of how they were born (although the more trollish among us, including many a fellow autistic, do have lulz at their expense); just as accommodations need to be made for them, so do they need to be made for homosexuals, although in this case they largely consist of ending discrimination and violence against them and no longer assuming that in a romantically- or sexually-linked pair one is female and one is male. "

We do attempt to cure them though.

Although I have no idea what synæsthetics are and neither does Google.

[Edited on December 24, 2011 at 11:07 PM. Reason : oh it's on page 2 of the results, still dont know or care what it is tho]

12/24/2011 11:04:43 PM

Quote :

"There is a gene linked to left handedness, which about 10% of the world is. Lets cure those diseased bastards."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Quote :

"Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in various (non-human) species. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same sex animals. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[1][2] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.[3] According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity — including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex — than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."[4] Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom.[5] A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.[6] "

Going to have a lot of curing to do.

Also, if this hypothetical were true, does this mean we can sneak gay drug into the water wells and turn everyone gay?

12/24/2011 11:22:41 PM

I am finding it hard to believe that there could possibly be differences between a straight male's brain and a gay male's brain... It seems like they would be identical in every way.

WHO WAS PHONE?!

12/25/2011 1:06:36 AM

I thought that there was already evidence of a genetic predisposition to be homosexual not something that automatically made you gay, something that satisfied the nature vs. nurture argument.

12/25/2011 1:19:01 AM

Nothing will ever truly satisfy the nature vs. nurture argument.

You wanna know why?

Because the scientific community has this thing its called a code of ethics. We're not nazis.

So no, nothing has settled that argument. And if anyone tells you, then you should either call them a nazi or a liar.

12/25/2011 1:20:38 AM

I meant that it found a balance between the two

12/25/2011 1:22:51 AM

Quote :

"Also, if this hypothetical were true, does this mean we can sneak gay drug into the water wells and turn everyone gay?"

haha, never heard of the Pentagon's (or was it CIA's) "Gay Bomb" project?

12/25/2011 2:02:55 AM

^^IIRC there was also evidence of influences from the natal environment, like a hypothesized cause of the well-known "older-brother effect"

12/25/2011 3:04:30 AM

Quote :

"If scientists could isolate XYZ gene that is different in homosexuals, and say (for instance) this gene only showed up in 10% of all humans, then I think it's safe to say this is abnormal."

So can we say being black is a disorder?

This thread has already gone off the rails because someone decided to take the first sentence of a wikipedia article as the most valid definition ("A disease is an abnormal condition affecting the body of an organism"). How about M-W?

Quote :

"a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms"

Does homosexuality impair normal functioning?

12/25/2011 7:06:48 AM

Normal functioning organisms generally reproduce

12/25/2011 9:43:07 AM

And most people correct for that through a variety of birth control methods up to and including surgery.

12/25/2011 11:17:37 AM

gay people can still reproduce. wtf is wrong with you, AndyMac?

12/25/2011 12:25:00 PM

But they generally don't

And before you ask, yes straight people who don't reproduce also aren't "functioning normally," or at least successfully, biologically speaking.

12/25/2011 8:30:24 PM

Obviously not wanting children is a sign of disease, no more vasectomies!!!

12/25/2011 8:31:55 PM

What counts as a disease?

12/25/2011 8:36:40 PM

something that causes diarrhea, chills..

12/25/2011 8:41:00 PM

Quote :

"And before you ask, yes straight people who don't reproduce also aren't "functioning normally," or at least successfully, biologically speaking."

what

[Edited on December 25, 2011 at 9:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/25/2011 9:20:06 PM

So no more blowjobs?

12/25/2011 9:30:34 PM

Obviously "not normal" =/= "disease"

12/25/2011 10:04:18 PM

Quote :

" "And before you ask, yes straight people who don't reproduce also aren't "functioning normally," or at least successfully, biologically speaking." what "

From a biological standpoint reproduction is probably the most important function of an organism. That is how genetic material is passed on.

[Edited on December 26, 2011 at 7:26 AM. Reason : asdf]

12/26/2011 7:26:32 AM

ITT, I have learned that a well adjusted and normal man will inseminate every woman he sees.


[Edited on December 26, 2011 at 9:24 AM. Reason : I gots dat monomagous love disease yall]

12/26/2011 9:23:00 AM

Genetically predisposed to "gettin' it in"

12/26/2011 10:49:48 AM

Quote :

"This thread has already gone off the rails"

This thread was off the rails from its genesis.

12/26/2011 11:08:45 AM

you could even say that this thread was diseased

12/26/2011 11:33:11 AM

alcoholism is a choice and homosexuality is a disease obviously

12/26/2011 11:52:18 AM

I never understood why people think that just because Evolution and the continuance of a species is driven by reproduction that non-reproducing members of that species are not normal or necessary. It was "normal" for 99.9% of every species that has ever existed to go extinct. Quit using breeding viability as your yardstick.

Our genes will ensure that enough people will breed and if it doesn't, oh well. Our identity as a species would be much better defined by how well we treat each other, not how often we get or rocks off.

12/26/2011 1:32:44 PM

^yep

12/26/2011 2:46:00 PM

exactly. evolution describes how nature works, not how societies should work

12/26/2011 3:29:19 PM

there you go with that "natural is over there" argument.

Every fucking thing you see around you is natural.

12/26/2011 3:57:08 PM

Nope, didn't say that.

But anyway "Every fucking thing you see around you is natural" is fucking idiotic. "Death by natural causes" isn't a synonym for death.

12/26/2011 6:03:53 PM

nature over here, society over there.

that's lame homie.

society is nature.

and death by natural causes is a synonym for death. hate elitist humans who think their shit aint natural.

12/26/2011 7:06:07 PM

well, you deserve an award for this one

Quote :

"society is nature"

12/26/2011 7:14:36 PM

Thank you, its actually the title of my thesis, entitled, "Society is Nature"

12/26/2011 11:38:06 PM

The fact that this discussion even took place is ridiculous.

Newsflash: Humans are the most complex organisms that we know about by far. Understanding genetics is important but we shouldn't assert that every condition that "isn't normal" that can carry a label is a genetic abnormality is mind-boggling. That's very dangerous language. Genetic variation is one of the foundations of biology.

12/27/2011 6:04:34 PM

I think it's a worthwhile discussion; it's just unfortunate that the word "disease" was used in the title, but that's pretty much a semantic misstep.

I think that it's without a doubt abnormal, and I think that at least, it's not really a stretch to classify it as a disorder.

Ok, so then what? Who cares? The problem is not classifying homosexuality as a disorder. It's the incorrect, silly, disproportionate, or harmful responses that some people have to it.

12/27/2011 8:11:18 PM

What, exactly, is the point of classifying it as a disorder other than to provide fodder for close-minded bigots? It's already classified as a sexual orientation... because that's what it is. Saying it's a disorder is extremely offensive and dangerous to gays and lesbians.

12/27/2011 10:39:49 PM

South South West is a disorder on my compass. Whenever I see the needle trending SSW I always reach in and give it a little twirl in the opposite direction.

12/27/2011 10:43:39 PM

Quote :

"Will this convince people? No. it just boils down to being a decent human being to people who do something that affects you in no way."

fuckin right.

12/27/2011 10:46:50 PM

Quote :

"What, exactly, is the point of classifying it as a disorder other than to provide fodder for close-minded bigots? It's already classified as a sexual orientation... because that's what it is. Saying it's a disorder is extremely offensive and dangerous to gays and lesbians. "

Whether or not it's offensive, dangerous, or provides fodder to bigots has nothing to do with whether or not it's a disorder. Either "that's what it is" (and it can very well be a sexual orientation and a disorder), or that's not what it is. Either way, we should call it what it is and not let social or political concerns yet again cloud our science.

I personally view it as certainly abnormal, and probably what we should view as a disorder. I won't claim to be enough of an authority on the subject that my view on the latter is incontrovertible. I doubt anyone else in this thread, even if they are gay, qualifies at that level, either. I also think that just calling it a disorder doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot, practically. I mean, the guy who butt-rapes his landlord's chihuahua doubtlessly has some sort of disorder(s) (see my chit-chat thread), and so does the guy has an overwhelming, compulsive need to always put his shoes on in a certain order or touch a certain doorknob with his left hand every 3rd time he walks by. So does the sex addict who bones members of the opposite sex at a prodigious rate.

So again, I say:

Ok, so then what? Who cares? The problem is not classifying homosexuality as a disorder. It's the incorrect, silly, disproportionate, or harmful responses that some people have to it.

[Edited on December 27, 2011 at 11:41 PM. Reason : and that the "fix" isn't to just refuse to call it a disorder if that's what it is.]

12/27/2011 11:39:35 PM

Basically what theDuke866 said.

I think we have gotten to the point as a society that if we even begin to question anything about homosexuality, than we are considered intolerant bigots. I really don't think that is a fair assessment, because I think it's very possible to accept homosexuality but still have questions about its niche in society.

Let me try to find a somewhat similar scenario. Obviously, the one I am thinking of isn't a perfect model, but I am just using it to draw some parallels. Take for instance two adults with mild down syndrome. Not the kind where they are drooling all over one another and require constant care, but instead the kind where they can function relatively normal in society. Should these two people be allowed to marry? Yes, assuming they can give their consent and they understand what they are getting in to. Now, should they be allowed to have children, knowing that they would probably also be retarded? Probably not. Should they be allowed to adopt a child who is "normal" (not afflicted with down syndrome)? IMO, that's up for debate. The wellfare of the child is the most important thing to consider. If someone comes to the conclusion that this couple probably shouldn't adopt a child, does it mean they are bigoted, horrible people? No, not at all, it simply means they have come to a conclusion that prohibits one person (or couple's) personal freedoms, while possibly protecting another's (the child).

Now let me try and draw some parallels here. Let's say we confirm that homosexuality is indeed a disorder. Should two consenting, same-sex adults be allowed to marry? Absolutely, because they can give their consent. Obviously they cannot have children without some kind of donor, host, etc. But, should they be allowed to adopt? My personal opinion is yes, however I do wish there was more concrete data to back up this "gut feeling". Now, is it wrong for someone to come to a different conclusion, and determine that since "nature" has dictated that they cannot make a child on their own, they shouldn't raise one? I don't think so at all, assuming they don't treat homosexuals as lesser people, commit hate crimes, etc. I would even go as far as to say one could be against homosexual marriage and not be a bigot (although in general, I would say that most people who oppose gay marriage do so for bigoted reasons).

I think the bottom line here (and my big point) is that just because someone doesn't support everything about homosexuality, or questions its genesis, etc etc, doesn't mean they are backwards, close-minded, intolerant people. Sure, some definitely are, but others, due to religious reasons, philosophical reasons, morality reasons, or other reasons, just aren't going to share the same opinions when it comes to this topic. A lot of people's immediate reaction is to start spewing forth how intolerant they are, which is akin to playing the "race card". It's entirely overused and very difficult to refute, but oftentimes completely unfounded.

12/28/2011 6:30:00 AM