/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16243800
Apparently it's a choice.

>>16243800
It's caused by both environmental and biological factors.

>>16243809
This is obviously wrong. If it was a choice, then people who didn't want to be gay wouldn't have to go to conversion therapy, they could just choose to become heterosexual on their own.

>>16243800
Looks like it's a social fad and entirely environemntal at least for predditors.

>>16244133
This is wrong. If it was a social fad, LGBT wouldn't have existed for so long. Gay, bisexual, and transgender people have been with us for centuries.

>>16243800
Mostly environment, it has no reproductive role in evolution so genetics has little to do with it. It's just mental illness, at best one could argue it has some societal benefit but that would also mean it's caused by social pressures and isn't innate.

>>16244140
> It's just mental illness
Prove it.

> at best one could argue it has some societal benefit but that would also mean it's caused by social pressures and isn't innate.

Lmao, this is complete illogical garbage. Using this logic, sexual libido has societal benefit, so that means it's caused by social pressures and isn't innate. Which is of course, wrong.

>>16243800
>It's caused by both environmental and biological factors.
That's hilarious because it still begs the politically incorrect question: given that a person has a predisposition to be gay, what triggers the gay-prone person to actually become gay? Whatever the answer to that question is will cause so much lulz there's not enough popcorn in the world to enjoy that shitshow.

>>16244145
It was a registered mental illness by the APA until pressure from social activists forced it to be changed. Penises evolved to enter vaginas for reproduction, someone whose brain tells them this isn't the case has their software screwed up and hence is ill mentally.

Libidio serves a reproductive purpose, thus natural selection aims for it while lgbtqism has no such thing. Your flawed thinking assumes exclusivity.

Homosexuality discourages reproduction and therefore has no mechanism to be passed down genetically, it's just that simple. Any gay gene would just be a aberration, not something selected for in evolution.

>>16244131
All studies of women show they're all basically the same level of gay. All women respond sexually to lesbian porn. This means that, for OP's women that he quoted it's very confusing because they 'think' they're gay but they're not, they're not any more or less gay than all other women. Maybe it's some biological trait to promote community? I mean, fucking hell bonobos fuck everything that moves, lesbian sex to them is like saying hello, quite literally, they greet each other by touching and rubbing their pussies together and bonobos are one of our closest relatives.

For women additionally romance is as important or perhaps more important than sex. Of course sex is important to women but romance, the touching, the holding, loving shit is equally up there. I guarantee that 100% of every woman who's a carpet munching lesbo had some bad experience with a man once and went off to be gay and since they love that romance shit and are getting it from another women, they mistake that for being gay.

Men though? You got me, gay men make no sense, there really is something different in their brains and I don't know how it got there.

>>16244164
>That's hilarious because it still begs the politically incorrect question: given that a person has a predisposition to be gay, what triggers the gay-prone person to actually become gay? Whatever the answer to that question is will cause so much lulz there's not enough popcorn in the world to enjoy that shitshow.

It would depend on the environmental factors that "trigger" it. Also, heterosexuality is also probably caused by both environmental and biological factors. Do we ever think about the "lulz" that will be generated when we figure out the environmental factors that "trigger" it?

This is what the sexologist really believes

>>16244176
>It was a registered mental illness by the APA until pressure from social activists forced it to be changed.
Partially true. There was a vote among experts to change the status of it, in response to social activists. But this is irrelevant to whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder. Using the DSM-V:

"A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or development processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g. political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8161428/#:~:text=DSM%2D5%20definition%20of%20mental,development%20processes%20underlying%20mental%20functioning.

How do you use this definition of "mental disorder" to prove that same-sex attraction is a mental illness?

> Penises evolved to enter vaginas for reproduction, someone whose brain tells them this isn't the case has their software screwed up and hence is ill mentally.

The belief that penises evolved to do anything is a teleological/philosophical view that is not supported by science.

>Libidio serves a reproductive purpose, thus natural selection aims for it while lgbtqism has no such thing. Your flawed thinking assumes exclusivity.
Libido serves a reproductive purpose? Not always. Homosexual behavior in bonobos has the purpose of relieving social tensions.

>>16244177
>All studies of women show they're all basically the same level of gay.
This is a gross exaggeration. We have to remember that sexual orientation exists on a continuum, and that there is a lot of variation. But yes, generally women are more sexually open to same-sex and bisexual behavior than men.

>This means that, for OP's women that he quoted it's very confusing because they 'think' they're gay but they're not, they're not any more or less gay than all other women. Maybe it's some biological trait to promote community?
The woman is probably in denial about her bisexuality. Also, again sexual orientation exists on a spectrum, and every woman experiences it differently.

>For women additionally romance is as important or perhaps more important than sex. Of course sex is important to women but romance, the touching, the holding, loving shit is equally up there. I guarantee that 100% of every woman who's a carpet munching lesbo had some bad experience with a man once and went off to be gay and since they love that romance shit and are getting it from another women, they mistake that for being gay.

You are conjecturing that 100% of self-identified lesbians are this way, meaning you're saying this without any scientific evidence whatsoever. Do I even have to point out the problem with this?

>>16244180
>when we figure out the environmental factors
As a proper anon I must say I've already figured that out of course. One factor is smell. I can barely smell other men and if I do it's either neutral or off-putting. I'm not talking about perfume of course and not necessarily sweat either. Female smell, not perfume or necessarily sweat, is not arousing per se but clearly is pleasant somehow. That's just a natural chemical reaction. Like shit naturally causes disgust, flowers and women have the opposite effect. So one of my hypotheses would be that homosexuals react in a different manner to such stimuli.

Now that may seem like a biological factor but not necessarily so because we know anecdotally that stimuli trigger mental associations like (un)pleasant memories for example that also determine wether the stimulus is experienced as (un)pleasant.

To elaborate even further: naturally children have an exploration phase in which they arbitrarily push buttons and see what happens so to speak. Now generally, for a not overly-sensitive risk-avoiding child, touch is quite pleasant and thus physical intimacy with other boys who are accidentally also experimenting can be quite pleasant. For example: a boy may practice judo with other boys. In such a phase positive associations with male-male intimacy can be made and which can then be confused by social expectations. Anyway that's my serieus attempt beyond meming like a /pol/tard.

>>16244177
I'm a guy who is heterosexual and for my entire life I never been significantly attracted to a girl if I didn't feel some emotional connection. The importance of romance in women is not exclusive to them. I never desire sex with a girl unless I have an emotional connection with them.

>>16244188
Homosexuality is a dysfunction in an individual's biological development in the fact they cannot reproduce with a mate. Even besides such a definition that is fluid to change it's simply obvious there's a software issue going on with someone whose brain is working against their biological imperative to reproduce. I'd say the same thing about someone wanting to castrate them self without a rational reason.

We can certainly speak of biological features as having purposes, at least as fictions. Would you contest that birds have wings in order to fly? If a penis emits semen while in a vagina, this fertilizes the female and results in reproduction. Yet if a penis does likewise in the asshole of another man, nothing is accomplished. Everything an organism does has ultimately been optimized by evolution with the end goal of reproduction. Traits like homosexuality that are not adaptive for reproduction get culled by natural selection. Hence homosexuality cannot simply be a normal biological trait passed down, but assuming it is biological to a degree, at best it'd be a dormant gene activated by some environmental factors that has perhaps slipped through natural selection. So it's not innate, nor the norm, as many other genetic illnesses exist.

Notice that I said you're assuming exclusivity. Something can have a reproductive purpose and serve other benefits, it need not be solely beneficial to reproduction. The problem is homosexuality has no reproductive benefit because homosexuals don't reproduce.

>>16244199
>One factor is smell. I can barely smell other men and if I do it's either neutral or off-putting. I'm not talking about perfume of course and not necessarily sweat either. Female smell, not perfume or necessarily sweat, is not arousing per se but clearly is pleasant somehow.
Are you sure this isn't just you? I cannot even tell the difference between male and female odor, and they're equally gross. I'm a heterosexual male.

>>16244210
There's always an exchange of molecules through the air wether you're aware of it or not. Smell is just one example of many stimuli. Another obvious example would be shape. Any heterosexual man will find his eyes dwelling in socially unacceptable ways when near a woman. The brain is a pattern recognition machine after all. A female pattern will trigger a male's physiology. Again: such stimulus/response models may be disturbed during the early life of homosexuals because these patterns are not deeply ingrained yet.

>>16244208

>Homosexuality is a dysfunction in an individual's biological development in the fact they cannot reproduce with a mate.
This is incorrect, a homosexual person can reproduce with a mate, they just aren't sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation#:~:text=is%20sexual%20orientation%3F-,Sexual%20orientation%20refers%20to%20an%20enduring%20pattern%20of%20emotional%2C%20romantic,others%20who%20share%20those%20attractions.

> it's simply obvious there's a software issue going on with someone whose brain is working against their biological imperative to reproduce. I'd say the same thing about someone wanting to castrate them self without a rational reason.

What about people who don't want to reproduce? Is that indicative of a mental disorder? Of course not.

> Would you contest that birds have wings in order to fly?
Yes I would. Evolution isn't Pokemon, nor do birds choose to have wings to fly. Time to rip the band-aid off: there is no use for purpose for evolution in a scientific context.

>Yet if a penis does likewise in the asshole of another man, nothing is accomplished.
Incorrect. Pleasure is accomplished, possibly at least one orgasm as well. There being no procreation doesn't mean "nothing is accomplished." This is absurd.

>Everything an organism does has ultimately been optimized by evolution with the end goal of reproduction.
Incorrect. You are assuming that everything in evolution is about natural selection, which isn't true. Plenty of evolution is genetic drift + mutation. Also again, there is no end goal in evolution.

>Notice that I said you're assuming exclusivity. Something can have a reproductive purpose and serve other benefits, it need not be solely beneficial to reproduction. The problem is homosexuality has no reproductive benefit because homosexuals don't reproduce.
Well you didn't define what you meant by exclusivity so I had no idea what you meant.

>>16244222
Responding to myself here:
By
>What about people who don't want to reproduce?
I'm talking about heterosexual people who don't like the idea of being a parent, whether that be social or biological. There are many people who would hate being a parent. Is that indicative of a mental disorder?

>>16244140
Your non-gay relatives can pass on your genes. A certain percentage of homosexuals can lessen resource competition and increase the chances of the offspring. For most of human history the limiting factor wasn't the availability of natural resources but how much labor there was to harvest them.

The genes that have made you gay could also have beneficial effects combined with other genes or may increase the fertility of women carrying these genes enough that they make up for you not getting any.

>>16244222
>This is incorrect, a homosexual person can reproduce with a mate, they just aren't sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

If a homosexual reproduces they are not in a homosexual relationship and therefore are doing so in spite of their homosexuality. Homosexuality is a detriment to reproduction and a homosexual cannot reproduce unless they act against their orientation.

>What about people who don't want to reproduce? Is that indicative of a mental disorder? Of course not.

Someone merely wanting something isn't indicative of a mental condition in itself. Homosexuality is a mental condition.

>Yes I would. Evolution isn't Pokemon, nor do birds choose to have wings to fly. Time to rip the band-aid off: there is no use for purpose for evolution in a scientific context.
I said nothing of choice, this is a matter of description. If birds don't have wings to fly then can you explain the mechanism that drives the organism to expend the resources necessary to develop these appendages?

>Incorrect. Pleasure is accomplished, possibly at least one orgasm as well. There being no procreation doesn't mean "nothing is accomplished." This is absurd.
I'm speaking of reproduction - to that end this activity accomplishes nothing. Pleasure in sexual acts exists to encourage organisms to have intercourse and reproduce, in this situation its presence is fruitless and a result of this mental illness.
>Incorrect. You are assuming that everything in evolution is about natural selection, which isn't true. Plenty of evolution is genetic drift + mutation. Also again, there is no end goal in evolution.
Again these terms are fictional matters of description. Only organisms with behavior and physique that are adaptive and lead to their production of the next generation are the ones that survive and exist today. Random drift and mutations are sources of nonadaptive, non-normative behavior. Obviously genetic diabetes didn't evolve out of it being an adaptive trait.

>>16244234
Yes it's possible it has societal benefits, but that would mean it's activated by environmental factors involving society. That's why I said it would mostly be due to environmental factors.

>>16244246
>Someone merely wanting something isn't indicative of a mental condition in itself. Homosexuality is a mental condition.
This doesn't make sense. Your argument is that homosexuality is a mental disorder because there is a software issue that is working against their biological imperative to reproduce. If a person doesn't desire to be a parent, then that is also working against their "biological imperative to reproduce." Therefore, it follows from your logic that not desiring to be a parent is a mental disorder, even if they are heterosexual.

> If birds don't have wings to fly then can you explain the mechanism that drives the organism to expend the resources necessary to develop these appendages?
The organism has those features because of evolution via by gradual modification via random genetic mutation + genetic drift and natural selection, not because there is a purpose behind them having wings.

>Pleasure in sexual acts exists to encourage organisms to have intercourse and reproduce
More teleology and no science. The only scientific thing you can say that pleasure is conducive to reproduction, because it makes the organisms feel good during sex.

>>16244222
>What about people who don't want to reproduce? Is that indicative of a mental disorder? Of course not.
You seem to be avoiding the obvious question why people who are less driven to reproduce have not been outcompeted yet. Your obvious defense would be that the will to reproduce is more conditioned than inherited. That begs the question why people who are most susceptible to reproduction-discouraging circumstances have not been outcompeted yet. The sense that something is ''wrong'' with an organism that's not driven to reproduce is the right intuition given our current understanding of evolution theory.

>>16244269
>You seem to be avoiding the obvious question why people who are less driven to reproduce have not been outcompeted yet.
What do you mean by outcompeted? Do you mean not having reproduced while others have? In that case, people who are less driven to reproduce are generally already outcompeted.

>Your obvious defense would be that the will to reproduce is more conditioned than inherited.
The will to reproduce is actually probably more inherited than conditioned. It's probably more biological than environmental, if we're just talking about heterosexual people at the very least.

>The sense that something is ''wrong'' with an organism that's not driven to reproduce is the right intuition given our current understanding of evolution theory.
Nope. This is an error. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that implies that something is "wrong" with an organism just because it's not driven to reproduce.

>>16244263
>This doesn't make sense. Your argument is that homosexuality is a mental disorder because there is a software issue that is working against their biological imperative to reproduce. If a person doesn't desire to be a parent, then that is also working against their "biological imperative to reproduce." Therefore, it follows from your logic that not desiring to be a parent is a mental disorder, even if they are heterosexual.
Mental condition != mental disorder. If I choose to eat a piece of paper as a joke or for some other reason, that's not a mental condition. Yet if I had Pica that decision would be the result of a mental disorder. I wouldn't claim to say that every decision can be traced to a well-defined mental condition. A heterosexual could choose to have sex with a member of the same sex and this wouldn't necessarily mean the person is mentally ill because it's unclear a mental condition is driving that decision.

>The organism has those features because of evolution via by gradual modification via random genetic mutation + genetic drift and natural selection, not because there is a purpose behind them having wings.
I asked for the mechanism behind a bird's growing wings, not how wings themselves developed. Wings are a feature of the genetic code that makes up a bird. Do you really think birds would regularly grow completely vestigial wings that do nothing to assist in its survival and reproduction? It's a complete waste of resources and birds that avoided this would outperform those that do. If yes, I can't fathom how you could say such a device has no purpose.

>Pleasure in sexual acts exists to encourage organisms to have intercourse and reproduce
>More teleology and no science. The only scientific thing you can say that pleasure is conducive to reproduction, because it makes the organisms feel good during sex.
Well I don't see any other reason for why pleasure would be adaptive

>>16244278
>In that case, people who are less driven to reproduce are generally already outcompeted.
Therefore you would expect that homosexuals don't exist because they don't reproduce. Alternatively: heterosexuals carry a predisposition that is not selected against. That can't be true because heterosexuals who carry that predisposition are selected against because each generation at least some of them turn gay and don't reproduce. Alternatively: all heterosexuals are equally predisposed to become homosexuals. That can't be true because equally predisposed is no predisposition at all. Thus if homosexuality is an inherited predisposition it must be selected against and disappear because homosexuals don't reproduce.

>>16244286
>Therefore you would expect that homosexuals don't exist because they don't reproduce.

>Thus if homosexuality is an inherited predisposition it must be selected against and disappear because homosexuals don't reproduce.

Not necessarily. The genes that influence homosexuality can be epigenetic (turn off or on), and influenced by the environment as well. Another thing is that it may be the case that the same genes that influence homosexuality may intersect with the genes that influence bisexuality and heterosexuality. They may even be the same exact genes. A heterosexual person may carry the genes that may eventually cause homosexuality in a later generation, because those genes may only activate given certain environmental factors.

>>16243800
It's mostly caused by environmental factors such as childhood molestation.

>>16244296
How does that add up mathematically though. Example:
>100 people in total
>50 people are (not) predisposed
>10 out of 50 predisposed people turn gay
Now the next generation has:
>135 people (90 heterosexuals reproduced 2.5 children and then died, 10 homosexuals did not reproduce)
>40 out of 135 people are predisposed to be gay now because the amount of people who did not pass their genetic predisposition is the same as the amount of people who got a newly acquired predisposition from the environment
> 1 out of 5 predisposed thus 8 people turn actually gay.
Next generation:
>189 people (126 heterosexuals got 2.5 children and then died, 8 homosexuals and 1 incel did not reproduce)
>32 are predisposed to be gay
>Etc.

So you see predisposition is decreasing even when equally attributed to biology and environment because homosexuals don't reproduce unless either biology or environment causes an increase in predisposition to compensate for the loss. Where am I wrong?

>>16244282

Is your position is that homosexuality is a mental condition, and not a mental disorder?

Were you this anon?

>Penises evolved to enter vaginas for reproduction, someone whose brain tells them this isn't the case has their software screwed up and hence is ill mentally.

Wouldn't this mean that homosexuals are mentally ill? This would also mean that all people who do not have a teleological view of evolution are mentally ill. Which is absurd and not supported by science.

>Do you really think birds would regularly grow completely vestigial wings that do nothing to assist in its survival and reproduction?

Nope. I never implied that. There is of course a genetic reason. You are right about that.

> If yes, I can't fathom how you could say such a device has no purpose.

Birds use their wings to fly, but that has no bearing on whether or not "birds have wings in order to fly," as that implies that purpose explains why they have wings in the first place, which is not supported by science.
If your only point is that birds use their wings to fly, then there should be no more discussion about this.

>>16244324
Another false assumption you are making is that gay people don't reproduce. But it is a documented fact that some people who were in opposite-sex marriages with children have later came out of the closet as gay. So this further complicates your argument.

>>16244303
My guess is that society indoctrinates everybody to associate genitals with gender, so even if a person believes that gender identity is separate from what genitals they have, they will still feel that there isn't a separation, which partly explains why they might develop gender dysphoria.

>>16244342
You're complicating the question to avoid simplifying the answer. The same song with any chronic disease: there are tons of obvious risk factors but not everyone who drinks Coca Cola gets diabetes so diabetes is a complicated interplay between genes and environment the depths of which are so mysterious I guess we will never know.

>>16243800
A bit of both, as with any other mental illness.

>>16244342
>You're complicating the question to avoid simplifying the answer.
I'm complicating your question because it relies on a false assumption, namely the assumption that gay people don't reproduce. Given that gay people have almost zero incentive to reproduce (the most relevant incentives wanting stability, emotional connection, and children), we would expect to see only a small percentage of them represent society, and that is exactly what we see.

>>16244359
>You're complicating the question to avoid simplifying the answer.
I'm complicating your question because it relies on a false assumption, namely the assumption that gay people don't reproduce. Given that gay people have almost zero incentive to reproduce (the most relevant incentives wanting stability, emotional connection, and children), we would expect to see only a small percentage of them represent society, and that is exactly what we see.

>>16243800
lesbianisn isn't real, more news at 11

>>16244177
Women don't have sexual orientation at all.

>>16244354
This is probably true, but the solution is psychological counseling to help people with dysphoria separate gender from gender identity.

>>16244246
>Again these terms are fictional matters of description.
If you are admitting that these terms are fictional matters of description, then you are admitting that your argument has false premises, and if your argument has false premises, then your argument is not sound or cogent.

>>16244370
>only a small percentage
Not the same small percentage everywhere all the time. In your defense: without a valid, accurate and reliable definition that's agreed upon and consistently measured it's complicated to figure out what attributes to these fluctuations.

Nevertheless: humans are basically motivated by fear/desire and punishment/reward. Therefore at least part of the explanation of why people think, feel and/or act gay is because it's desirable and rewarding to do so. In recent history coming out has been incentivized in a multitude of ways and there's no clear analysis of the costs/benefits. Whatever the cost/benefit balance of incentivizing homosexuality may be: we can at least established that the culture of a society is related to the survival and reproduction of the human species. Considering that various religions reject homosexuality that may be a clear indicator that it's found to be a disadvantageous practice by our ancestors.

>>16244415
The recent increases in the percentage of LGBT people in at least North America is attributable to decreased stigmatization of LGBT lives, which has led people to more honestly question their own sexualities, and gender identities. The percentage for gay and lesbian people is still very low specifically.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx

If you look one of the charts, the total percentage of lesbian and gay for people in the US is 2.5%.

>Nevertheless: humans are basically motivated by fear/desire and punishment/reward. Therefore at least part of the explanation of why people think, feel and/or act gay is because it's desirable and rewarding to do so.

I disagree. Heterosexuality is much more positively portrayed in books, TV shows, and movies compared to homosexuality. Furthermore, housing discrimination is exclusive to gay people, and so is being "outed" and being kicked out and disowned by parents. By far, being homosexual in today's society has more negative consequences than being heterosexual. Just the fact that people are motivated by punishment/reward is not sufficient evidence to conclude that

"at least part of the explanation of why people think, feel and/or act gay is because it's desirable and rewarding to do so."

>>16244431
>honestly question their own sexualities, and gender identities.
If there's no definition of sex(uality) or gender identity then there's nothing to question either: anyone can be and do whatever they want. What is questionable however is the consequences of being and doing whatever you want instead of adhering to traditionally prescribed roles.

>Heterosexuality is much more positively portrayed in books
Homosexuality is rubbed in our faces by all sorts of online and off line media. The Last of Us part 2 is an infamous example.

>discrimination
Everyone everywhere is getting discriminated for every possible reason. Tall, short, skinny, fat, ugly, beautiful, dumb, smart, (dis)abilities name a trait and it's both an advantage and disadvantage depending on the context. On the other hand: diversity quotas exclude white heterosexual men. You know all this. You're going in a very dishonest direction.

>>16244188
>Socially deviant behavior (e.g. political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above."
>A mental disorder is characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or development processes underlying mental functioning

These two definitions contradict each other. Socially deviant behavior is a disturbance in or variaty of someone's behavior, hence why it can be differentiated from some other behavior, that causes distress and disability in the subject, otherwise the notion of it being deviant is rendered meaningless. Socially deviant behavior is also down to psychological, biological or developmental processes, since, per psychology, all behavior is down to neurological processes that are connected to environmental inputs. It makes no sense to pretend that the locus of dysfunction is between society and an individual in the case of homosexuality or religion, but inside an individual in the case of ADHD, autism or schizophrenia.
>How do you use this definition of "mental disorder" to prove that same-sex attraction is a mental illness?
Simple, if all the mental disorders in the DSM-5 are detrimental to an individual's survival and functioning, what condition is probably going to have the most negative impact on reproduction? Disorders in psychosexual functioning which includes homosexuality.
>The belief that penises evolved to do anything is a teleological/philosophical view that is not supported by science.
Evolutionary science isn't science?

Pretty much what >>16244164 says, but not just because gay people might be raped as kids.
The people in your picture are gay because they chose to be gay for internet clout and DEI points.

>>16243800
>50% identification with LGBT for young women under 30 isnt environmental or biological. Its purely an ideology being spread.

>>16244514
You're not really supposed to ask that question, because it's generally understood, that someone asking for the cause of something is looking for a way to stop it.
By definition, homosexuality per se can't be genetic. If it was in itself genetically inherited, evolutionary processes would have selected against it. It could be a de novo mutation, but that gay gene is unlikely to exist.
It's much more likely that homosexuality is the potential probabilistic outcome of human processes that, overall, benefit the individual. But in a number of cases, the processes will cause an individual to forego heterosexual reproduction altogether. The causes can be hormonal imprinting, psycho-social and psycho-sexual factors, environmental influences etc. Then, there's the whole social contagion thing.

>>16244521
Genetic predisposition seems to be the way most things operate. Some women are predisposed to male pattern baldness, but it never actually comes up because they don't have the testosterone required to activate it, until they get an infection and need to take some then their hair all falls out.
All I'm saying is that some people who are straight may have ended up being gay if their environment was different at or around puberty.

And to be clear, I don't have any desire to "stop it," I literally don't care about the result. Simply knowing the cause would be neat, as with much of science

>>16244522
Hoe

>>16244522
Genetic predisposition is just the variability in probabilistic outcomes when certain environmental triggers are present. Frankly, I think that the term is kind of... meaningless.
I personally believe, homosexuality is down to hormonal imprinting. I base this claim on my observation that homosexual men tend to be more feminine in their social behavior and interests even before becoming aware of their sexual orientation. It makes sense, given the fact, that boys and girls don't tend to be sexually attracted to each other, so homosexuality is either caused by a deviant process during puberty, that fails to properly trigger kids into getting attracted by the opposite sex or it's caused by prenatal hormonal imprinting.
>All I'm saying is that some people who are straight may have ended up being gay if their environment was different at or around puberty.
I gravitate towards biological processes as the cause of homosexuality.

>>16244397
This seperation is part of why some people do not choose to undergo SRS as part of affirmation.

>>16243800
Psychoanalytic theory has always assumed humans are naturally bisexual but differ in intensities. Kinsey pretty much proved this to be the case. Still, it doesn't tell us why some people identify as straight, gay, bi, trans etc. I will exclude trans because it has almost nothing to do with sexual orientation. Sexual identification is probably a mix of social pressures, cultural and ideological habits, and personal choice. A man who has stronger homosexual desires than heterosexual ones is more likely to be treated as gay by others, more likely to see himself as gay, and adopt a gay lifestyle and identity while suppressing or sublimating any heterosexual impulses he feels. As for why there are variations in gender attraction to begin with, its probably a mix of biology, psychology, and early life experiences which shape a person's sexuality.

Short answer: its a mental illness.

>>16243800
Too many bathtimes with daddy

>>16244282
>Mental condition != mental disorder. If I choose to eat a piece of paper as a joke or for some other reason, that's not a mental condition. Yet if I had Pica that decision would be the result of a mental disorder. I wouldn't claim to say that every decision can be traced to a well-defined mental condition. A heterosexual could choose to have sex with a member of the same sex and this wouldn't necessarily mean the person is mentally ill because it's unclear a mental condition is driving that decision.
You're being teleological again. "if a person making a weird decision does it as a result of a mental disorder, then they have a mental disorder, but if a person makes a weird decision and they don't have a mental disorder, then they don't have a mental disorder." mental disorders don't exist outside of a person's choices, they're not weird metaphysical parasites attached to the human mind. mental disorders are defined by the person's ability or inability to live in society. if music was seen as bad in a given society, people who hum, whistle, or sing a lot might be said to have a mental disorder. homosexual people and heterosexual people can both choose not to have children, and both choices would be willing, conscious choices. there's no difference, you're using circular logic.
Also, homosexual people can adopt, or have a child via surrogacy, both of which contribute to society.

>>16244140
I believe that there was once a study which showed that the more sons a woman has, the more likely the younger sons are to be gay. If this is true then it probably serves the purpose of having effectively back up males that won't necessarily compete for reproduction but will be able to help out in societies and, if necessary, can step in to boost reproduction after disasters which cause a big loss in population.

>>16243800
Humans have inbuilt sexual recognition. It is genetic, it can be fucked up sometimes, but it can be overridden at any time.
Basically first sexual encounters are crucial in determining your sexual preference and arousal besides the genetic one.

>>16245046
>mental disorders don't exist outside of a person's choices, they're not weird metaphysical parasites attached to the human mind
Well, according to established psychology and their pharmaceutical handlers, they are real things gone wrong in your brain. If you're depressed, there's something gone wrong metabolically, so you have to take your SSRIs. If you're smart enough to know that this is a lie, they may simply say: "It's gonna help you compensate":
If I for now subscribe to that notion, there is, in my opinion, no way for certain conditions, like homosexuality or extreme religiosity, not to fall under the mental illness umbrella. They are arguably both biologically mitigated and their impact is, on a social level, negative.

This begs the question why the reality of pathology is ignored by the psychiatric institution in the numerous cases where the notion of pathology, according to their own definition, could be properly applied to. This then begs the question on the other hand, why psychiatric institutions are obsessed with circumscribed and mostly poorly defined categorical entities that, in themselves, do not describe something inherently pathological. You can figure out the answer yourself, but it's simple: What we nowadays call mental disorder are constellations of behavioral traits that are not conductive to exploitation. Homosexuality is conductive because homosexuals are neurotic and compensate heavily (which makes them easy to exploit) and it depresses fertility. Something like bipolar disorder isn't because they're depressed or manic and if they're one of the both, they're usually going to do shit at their job.

>>16243800
Test

>>16243800
Look retards, I can't blame you, I don't know why people won't wake the fuck up and look at this.

It's called being gay, or being lesbian, or being bisexual, or being "trans". There's no such thing as an "LGBT" person. LGBT is a political coalition and a political term, it doesn't describe people.

People who don't even believe in this shit freely wield the term LGBT and they don't realize the power they are handing over for free. Trans has little to do with being gay, same for being black, latin, or intersex.

>>16244139
You mean pederasty and crossdressing?

>>16244472
>Homosexuality is rubbed in our faces by all sorts of online and off line media. The Last of Us part 2 is an infamous example.
A classic example of cherry picking. Overall, there is much more positive representation of heterosexuality in media than homosexuality. Also, when homosexual characters are shown in media, they are often stereotyped.

>Everyone everywhere is getting discriminated for every possible reason. Tall, short, skinny, fat, ugly, beautiful, dumb, smart, (dis)abilities name a trait and it's both an advantage and disadvantage depending on the context. On the other hand: diversity quotas exclude white heterosexual men. You know all this. You're going in a very dishonest direction.

Gay people are uniquely discriminated against in society in horrific ways. You conveniently ignored the housing discrimination, as well as the outing and getting kicked out of their parents' home and getting disowned by parents that I put in my post. Also, discrimination against white heterosexual men is rare. Do white heterosexual men get outed and disowned by their parents because of being heterosexual? You say I'm being dishonest, but you draw an equivalence between the discrimination that homosexual people face, and the discrimination that white heterosexual people face. They are not even comparable.

>>16244510
>Simple, if all the mental disorders in the DSM-5 are detrimental to an individual's survival and functioning, what condition is probably going to have the most negative impact on reproduction? Disorders in psychosexual functioning which includes homosexuality.
I'm not sure what your point is here. People don't need to reproduce to survive and function in society.

>>16245642
>. People don't need to reproduce to survive and function in society.
People don't need to act morally or ethically to survive and function in society, but we still consider Anti-Social Personality Disorder (PC term for psychopathy/sociopathy) to be, well, a disorder.

>>16245642
>Gay people are uniquely discriminated against
You're implying that for every country, household, school, workplace and every other context there's a complete and undisputed dataset of every possible identity in relation to each other with a definitive analysis of who gets the best and worst cost/benefit of all.

>>16245642
>A classic example of cherry picking. Overall
Again: you're implying that you have a complete dataset. Where is it? On what basis can you claim to be less biased than anyone else?

>>16245642
>Disorders in psychosexual functioning which includes homosexuality.
Not him but your reasoning is circular. A disorder is a mismatch between how an individual wants to be and how the environment wants the individual to be. That begs the question: should the individual adapt to the environment or should the environment adapt to the individual? That leads to the circular reasoning that homosexuality is a problem because it's considered to be a problem which leaves unanswered what the problem is because thriving in society = how well you get along with others.

>>16244510
>Evolutionary science isn't science?
It is, but the idea that penises evolved to do something is a philosophical view that is not supported by evolutionary science. I'm sorry you have a pop-sci understanding of evolution.

>>16245648
>People don't need to act morally or ethically to survive and function in society, but we still consider Anti-Social Personality Disorder (PC term for psychopathy/sociopathy) to be, well, a disorder.

What does this have to do with my post? It doesn't appear to refute my claim, instead it just goes off on another subject. Also, it is not entirely true that people don't need to act morally or ethically to survive and function in society. If you keep indiscriminately molesting children in public that wouldn't be functioning in society, and you probably wouldn't survive very long either.

>You're implying that for every country, household, school, workplace and every other context there's a complete and undisputed dataset of every possible identity in relation to each other with a definitive analysis of who gets the best and worst cost/benefit of all.

I'm talking about the US specifically, and the original debate was about homosexuals vs heterosexuals with respect to discrimination, not about discrimination for every possible identity. That is the domain of the debate.

See here:
>>16244431
>I disagree. Heterosexuality is much more positively portrayed in books, TV shows, and movies compared to homosexuality. Furthermore, housing discrimination is exclusive to gay people, and so is being "outed" and being kicked out and disowned by parents. By far, being homosexual in today's society has more negative consequences than being heterosexual.

We're obviously talking about discrimination on the basis of sexuality for homosexuals vs heterosexuals. With that in mind, we can now think clearly about the following:

Claim: In terms of discrimination, gay people experience far more negative consequences than heterosexual people.

If this is true, then we would expect a lot of documentation of discrimination based on being gay, and little to zero documentation of discrimination based on being heterosexual.

Are there many documented incidents of the following for gay people in the US on the basis of sexuality?

Being outed, facing housing discrimination for romantic couples, being disowned, and kicked out of house by their own parents.

The answer: Yes. So many examples. What about for heterosexual people?

None. No documented incidents of heterosexuals having been outed for their sexuality, been disowned for it, and kicked out of the house by their parents because they were 'breeders.'

Conclusion: We are justified in believing the claim.

>>16245648
>I'm not sure what your point is here. People don't need to reproduce to survive and function in society.
Yes, they do. The idea that reproduction isn't necessary for a society to survive is a delusion brought on by our current individualistic order. Homosexuality, for example, was generally understood to be an instance of parasitism.
I also contend: If mental health is measured in terms of how well you can function in society and how much you can contribute to it, then the term "mental illness" effectively degenerates into a slur for people who aren't good wage slaves. It renders the notion of mental illness politically charged and subsequently subject to political whim.
It's meaningless. Mental illness turns into a rhetorical device at best, meant to stigmatize the poor and condition the more capable. What scientific basis does something like ADHD have when it's all about wage-cucking?
>>16245725
>It is, but the idea that penises evolved to do something is a philosophical view that is not supported by evolutionary science. I'm sorry you have a pop-sci understanding of evolution.
Yet, you imply that the mind has been made or created to do something. You project teleological reasoning on an abstract notion, not even a physically real, measurable thing. Its reason for existing is tied to processes that are economically and politically mitigated. In fact, evolutionary theory is, other than mere appeals to authority, the only way for someone to meaningfully differentiate between what is "healthy" and "unhealthy" behavior in the sense of it being conductive to survival under natural conditions. This would instantly eliminate ADHD and depression as pathological mental health instances and has also been argued to seriously cast doubt over the legitimacy of things like schizophrenia or autism as pathological. Especially since all mental disorders involve extreme states, an exaggeration in quantity, but never a meaningful departure of quality.

>>16245757
>What does this have to do with my post? It doesn't appear to refute my claim, instead it just goes off on another subject. Also, it is not entirely true that people don't need to act morally or ethically to survive and function in society. If you keep indiscriminately molesting children in public that wouldn't be functioning in society, and you probably wouldn't survive very long either.
Please, apply this to the case of homosexuality. My point, however, isn't homosexuality per se. My point is that you weirdly differentiate between antisocial personality disorder and homosexuality when any definition of what constitutes a pathology/mental disorder would have to classify both as instances of mental disease.

They both involve net losses for society. Homosexuality, because of diminished fertility, ASPD, because of a break-down in trust. Yet, from the perspective of someone with ASPD, his "condition" even might enable him to get ahead of others. Subsequently, it has been noted by anthropologists, that people high in ASPD traits are more successful when it comes to impregnating women and that many tribal societies will naturally select for people high in such traits. A homosexual person, on the other hand, due to his diminished fertility, would likely end his lineage. That homosexuality still persists to this day is due to it being a spandrel of some other possibly genetic characteristic. People high in such traits would be more successful than others but would also be more likely to develop homosexual feelings. Either way, for those becoming homosexual, it's detrimental.

>>16243800
Sexual orientation is a social construct. Words in human language meant to try to categorize and rationalize something as complicated, imperfect, and irrational as human sexuality. That's why I don't identify, or rather limit myself with labels.

>>16244212
>Any heterosexual man will find his eyes dwelling in socially unacceptable ways when near a woman.
I'm straight and never have this problem. Funnily enough it's only guys that have made my eyes dilate. Most of my crushes were other guys.

>>16246515
>Please, apply this to the case of homosexuality. My point, however, isn't homosexuality per se. My point is that you weirdly differentiate between antisocial personality disorder and homosexuality when any definition of what constitutes a pathology/mental disorder would have to classify both as instances of mental disease.

>They both involve net losses for society. Homosexuality, because of diminished fertility,

Using this criteria, the desire to want to have no children in otherwise fertile persons is also a pathology/mental disorder, because the people who have such a mental state contribute to the diminished fertility of the population. People who come to hold to the philosophical viewpoint of anti-natalism, necessarily have a pathology/mental disorder, in virtue of their idiosyncratic belief.

>>16246496
>Yes, they do. The idea that reproduction isn't necessary for a society to survive is a delusion brought on by our current individualistic order. Homosexuality, for example, was generally understood to be an instance of parasitism.

Reproduction is necessary for a society to survive, but that has no bearing on whether a single person can survive and function in society without reproducing.

>Yet, you imply that the mind has been made or created to do something.
When have I ever done that? Quote me, please. I'm genuinely interested.

>In fact, evolutionary theory is, other than mere appeals to authority, the only way for someone to meaningfully differentiate between what is "healthy" and "unhealthy" behavior in the sense of it being conductive to survival under natural conditions.

Conductive to survival under natural conditions? What do you mean by "conductive"? I thought "conductive" just referred to the ability of substance to allow heat or electricity to pass through it. Also what are "natural conditions"? If it happens in nature, then I would consider it to be natural. So when you say "natural conditions," I just think of any sort of condition that I can in principle detect via any means.

>>16246567
You're so strong and I am very proud of you, sweaty!