Is being homosexual a mental illness?

Honestly want some Sup Forumslacks opinions. Is being gay a mental illness? My brother, 20, and a psychology major who will be going into the military has damn near got me convinced being gay is actually a mental illness. I always thought it was bullshit until I swallowed a few redpills over the last three years. I'm a heterosexual male who is currently engaged, but have had a few gay friends in my years. They always seemed a bit more... off than the rest of our friend group. Sup Forums give me your opinion.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jjPQ_jVlEnQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

yes

youtube.com/watch?v=jjPQ_jVlEnQ

allow shmoil hydelberg to educate you on the dangers of homosexuality and mental illness

Yes, the gay is mental illness.

yes

its has to be when they are such bloody sexual degenerates that half of them have aids

First, define what a mental illness is.

Question is then, if it is a mental illness, can it be cured? And if so why haven't they pushed for a cure? Do (((they))) not want a cure? I'm obviously fairly new here.

Common sense, and evolutionary biology. Being a faggot is inherently counter-adaptive, meaning that fucking men in the asshole doesn't actually pass your genes along. Being a faggot guarantees non-reproduction. The brain regions responsible for sexuality are firing, but they are firing in a distorted, corrupt, and degenerate (as in, de-generative, backwards) fashion.

Well mayo clinic defines it as "Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior."

>>So that leads me to believe yes, it is?

Unless there is something bigger at play?

It isn't a mental illness, even if Sup Forums would like it to be one.
It's a condition appearing in a lot of mammals.
It is only partly genetic tough.

So does that mean some make it a choice? Or a majority decide to? Or is it caused by trauma somewhere during development?

I'll rephrase, why is being gay considered a disorder?

>Inb4 unnatural

Human attraction typically involves more than just sex. In fact the vast majority of people probably aren't 100% straight. Maybe if you keep blasting cum into dudes assholes because you believe it'll get them pregnant, then you probably have a mental disorder.

>It isn't a mental illness, even if Sup Forums would like it to be one.

Having a compulsion to put your seed into somebody anus is totally normal?

>It's a condition appearing in a lot of mammals.

What does it proof that it is also present in animals?

Alright I can get on board with that argument. So let me get this straight, you are only arguing it is a mental illness if you make it into a lifestyle? Or have some sort of belief that it's normalized because 'x'?

the percentage of the population is too high to be a straight up defect, it likely has some positive effect on the survival of people in a tribal society. Otherwise it wouldn't have persisted this well.
Or maybe it's the kikes shilling for it that got the percentages up, but i really think there is more to it

...

as far as I know there is a gentic factor and the environment you grow up in, also it is not quite black and white but rather fluid, especially in women.

According to medical texts up until the late 1980s when it was censored, yes.

and if you think about it it only really is an issue because we have such a large interconnected society, in a tribal environment where humans evolved it doesn't quite have this adverse effect

Think some of these old texts would be in my school's medical libraries still? Or do you think when they censored them they deleted all that shit? Might try to find them and compare them to modern day findings.

yes

Ask yourself another question:
>What is homosexuality?
And try to get an answer that is as biologically/psychologically precise as possible.

It's hard, isn't it? Not much is known about the "sexual orientations" from scientific standpoint. Compare it to the gender disorders - brain problems, hormone problems, fetal development disorders, we have understood a multitude of biological reasons for that. But what about homosexuality?

The most common argument, "some people are just born this way", which implies a genetic disorder, completely falls apart with the second argument "there's always a 1-3-5% of gay people in society, deal with it", but that's not how genetics work. Any negative trait (from evolutionary standpoint) will always follow the same path - from the first mutation, a small increase in a curve, and then dying out as evolution removes it from the population. Realistically, there should be times and places where there's no homosexuals - and we could make a hypothesis that the greek-roman culture was an upper point of the curve, and then the mutation was removed. However, with current knowledge we should be able to find at least a clue to what mutations causes it. There's nothing like that, a few theories and correlations that we have yet to prove, and no definite genetic proof of homosexuality somewhere.

Some people say that it's epigenetic factors, but the field is so large and so little is known about them that it's basically a scientific nice way of saying "I don't have a clue". Of those that we are aware of, there's no proof.

"The animals do it" proof is another contradiction - animals do it when they are conditioned to by the external factors, like the lack of females, and return to normal when it's removed. If we look at it this way, there may be a correlation between increase of the number of homosexuals with the increase of urbanization and a population boom. In other words, it might be a "disease of affluence" like depression.

Wow this might be one of the most concise summaries I've read. Thanks Poland.

I guess when you think of homosexuality in the past you see it occur in large empires, and in crowded areas which could support the disease of affluence argument.

General i do think it's odd when gay people make their sexuality part of their identity. You don't see straight people going around waving black and white flags and dancing naked in the streets. Then again, straight people generally aren't ostracized for their sexuality so they don't need pride celebrations or raise awareness to validate their lifestyles. Other Groups that feel marginalized do things like this as well and we usually don't say they have mental disorders.

Personally if you're gay and a "little off", I'd argue that the gayness might be a symptom of a mental disorder and not the cause. Individuals who are molested, sex addict, porn addict, drug addicts all engage high risk behaviors and fetishes, one of which may be homosexuality. However, This certainly isn't the case with all gays people.
Long story short, i don not think homosexuality by itself is a mental illness. Feel free to disagree

LG isn't a mental illness

B is just delusion

TQ and everything else is mental illness

Before the trannies and otherkin hopped on the train fags openly acknowledged they were abnormal, it's the origin of the word "queer" and why they started using it. Before the SJW craze I had zero issues with fags, they were mostly normal guys who admitted they were attracted to the wrong gender but were still otherwise normal contributing members of society, kids raised by gay men were generally normal. Trannies all commit suicide and if they have children they mold them with their own twisted beliefs

getting into ANY relation ship is a choice

>Question is then, if it is a mental illness, can it be cured?
The exact nature of the mind and psyche is largely unknown.

One thing is for sure though, deviancy's promulgation is a brick in the wall of the destruction of western civilization.

I know they exist because my mother is a nurse and her psych books and clinical books had it listed as a mental disorder. I doubt you'd be able to find it easily now because people are so sue happy nowadays but you could try.


I personally still think trans are mentally ill because there's no logic behind it.

Interesting, but just because it may occur more frequently in urban areas (which I'm not even sure that's true. Is there a source on this assumption?) does that mean it's necessarily an 'illness'? Do most gays consider themselves to be suffering?

>Do most gays consider themselves to be suffering?

They suffer a lot, but they usually blame society for it.

Yes

Well would you consider men who aren't deformed but can't attract women to have a mental disorder? Or is it women's fault for being mean and shallow to those men; and is it other men's fault for shaming those men when they can't get laid?
I would say gays are suffering in a similar way.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I have some screws loose. I'm attracted to men and women both, but I have trouble with emotional intimacy with women. Not really sure why.

Men on the other hand are a lot easier for me to love, and to connect with emotionally. I don't, and have never slutted around, but then I'm probably an outlier in that regard.

I'd like children someday, but I have concerns about my fitness as a father and my ability to give them a stable childhood with the way things are going these days.

Tl;dr yeah, probably.

>which I'm not even sure that's true. Is there a source on this assumption?

>According to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law’s analysis of the 2010 Census data, approximately 64,000 cohabitating same-sex couples live in rural American, representing roughly ten percent of all cohabitating same-sex couples in the country.

That gives around 10% gays in the rural areas, with 90% in the urban areas. Urbanization rate in USA i almost exactly 80%, so gays are half as likely to live in rural areas. Obviously, majority of the arguments about it are around the intolerance of the rural places and them not revealing themselves, but at the same time we may view it from the other way - people in the urban areas may be more inured to the presence of homosexuals, therefore more tolerant.

Explaining the difference using social arguments wouldn't also explain the similarity between the homosexuality among animals and humans. Also remember that 5% difference is considered to be statistically significant, while we're dealing with 50% here.

There's also a funny thing about those biological mechanics of social influence that it takes population density, rather than the overall population, to calculate the thresholds - so an area may be considered rural by us, but not biologically if people live close to each other - in Japan, villages become towns legally when they reach 20,000 population, so a rural area can be pretty dense there.

Also, while I did call it a disease of affluence, I never called it an illness. I merely proposed that it might be a result of activating some sort of a biological leash that tries to slow the population growth to avoid overpopulation.

Not a cure, but treatment and therapy. Treat it like any other disorder

why is sam hyde doing dropping massive red pills at a comedy show?

if there was a treatment that was proven to work, do you honestly think they would allow it?

It's a genetic defect for reducing population

Liberalism is a mental disease in the way Homosexuality is. It all depends on whether you accept, tolerate, nurture a noticed thought, or whether you reject, rebuke, revile a noticed thought.

It has to do with porn too.

Not likely. It's chemistry that makes them respond to the same gender in ways hetero respond to the opposite.

People in general do a lot of stupid shit to satisfy their own desires so if you want to go down that route then pretty much the entire globe suffers from a mental illness and the term becomes meaningless.

I think Mike has a cure