Let the comparisons between gay men and goats begin...

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Cool TheStinger! it's about time someone trowed in that amazing original argument to hijack the thread!

You just received the "Most horrific not-original threadjacker of the month"
Congrats!

As most people who think homosexuality is a mental illness are religious then I don't think it was a threadjack.

Why is homosexuality more likley to be mental illness than a belief if in a supernatural supreme being

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Wouldn't suprise me if the ultra-conservatives start pushing for a re-reversal of the APA's position based on this and future studies sure to follow...

Why be mad at people who want to study the possibility of mental illness behind homosexuality?
It's like you want to forbid other opinions, and want to close any scientific research that might come with other conclusions than the one you prefer.

If they want to study it, let them study it. It's their right, and it's the only way science can work.

About satanism and goats: this thread ID = 66606 !

Because, CyberShy, they'd be pushing for all the wrong reasons: religion, religion, religion. Plus, funny things happen when someone is considered "mentally ill." Other people begin treating them like invalids, incapable of living independant, healthy, happy lives. Usually they get institutionalized, drugged, or both.

As I indicated in the top post, I have nothing against (UNBIASED AND SCIENTIFIC) studies on homosexuality, but there is a grave risk of the effort being misused or misdirected.

[Dry]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I suppose that this study is laying the foundation for declaring homosexuals mentally ill.

No more no less than falling in love. I remember a study of what kind of hormones/drug/stuff was (more) present in the brain when you are in love...
Same when you are hurt, afraid, happy, near dead, angry...
All mental illnesses, for sure.

[Robert]

Why is homosexuality more likley to be mental illness than a belief if in a supernatural supreme being

ah, now I see it, you can decide yourself to be a homosexual or not......

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Why is homosexuality more likley to be mental illness than a belief if in a supernatural supreme being

ah, now I see it, you can decide yourself to be a homosexual or not......

I 'm just asking why there seems to be a need by some people to seek to explain homosexuality as being a mental illness. Those people are generally religious and therfore it seems reasonable to enquire why they beleive in what they do when there is no emprical evidence for it. If i started saying i believed a big rabbit called dave was giving me instructions then people would think I was ill.

[Solly]

And since when did natural = good, anyway?

If some male animal kills another male for a female of the species, does that make it ok for humans to do the same?

[Robert]

TheStinger: their opinion is as valid as yours.
There is no need in this thead to suddenly start to bash people who didn't even voice their opinion in this thread.

Get back to my argument about sodimizing as a way to show of your powers in the animal world.
Or, the argument Boddingthon's gives below, that more stuff happens in the animal world that we do not concider to be usual for humans.

[Drake Tungsten]

How would this study allow people to classify homosexuality as a mental illness?

Since the study detected differences in the physical structure of the brain, it is far more likely that homosexuality would be reclassified as a disease, some sort of problem in the body that leads to a malformed brain.

[Sarxis]

First the scientists watched the sheep to be sure of their behavior -- something that cannot be done with humans. Then they took apart their brains.

Something that SHOULD be done to some humans.

I like to think humans don't need to always model their lives after nature. So like was said- just because something is in nature, that doesn't always mean we are to live according to pattern of it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Much animal males 'sodomise' other males of the group to show their superiority above them. It used to happen in old civilizations as well, that the king 'sodomized' new slaves to show his power above them.

We can have a cute discussion on how human homosexuality compares to this behavior

Except the articles says:

"Working with a team at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (news - web sites)'s Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho, Roselli's team studied 27 sheep -- 10 ewes, nine rams that mated only with other rams and eight rams that mated only with females."

This doesn't bolster your argument, as the rams were exclusively homosexual in their couplings. If they were out to show their superiority, they'd still be mating with the females.

And someone please define "natural" and "unnatural." Moral hypocrites like Bods like to through these terms around, but never can define them. I can come up with tons of "unnatural" behavior I'm sure everyone here has engaged in. In fact, I'm sure Spink would have a hard time explaining his late night self-pleasuring sessions by such standards.

Something that SHOULD be done to some humans.

Not sure what you mean here, but I hope it's not what I think...

[Robert]

Boris, I never said it only works that way among animals, but it does happen among some animals for sure.

We were discussing natural things, remember.

conclusion: I did not claim that all homosexual animals are just showing off their power. But I claimed that some animals sodomize other males to show off.
Others do it because they like it

[Dry]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And someone please define "natural" and "unnatural."

Ok, let me try...
Well, "natural"... that can be found in nature...
Examples:
Stones are natural... so, stoning is "natural" (esp. with "bio" stones).
Houses are unnatural, so ....
Hmm, well, I'm not sure my examples are really that good... err, ok, no...

Ok, forget my examples, bad ones... errr, I give up on this "nature" question.
Does someone has a clue?

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And someone please define "natural" and "unnatural." Moral hypocrites like Bods like to through these terms around, but never can define them. I can come up with tons of "unnatural" behavior I'm sure everyone here has engaged in. In fact, I'm sure Spink would have a hard time explaining his late night self-pleasuring sessions by such standards.

He'd have a pretty easy time of it. Chimps of both sexes have been observed *ahem* enjoying themselves alone.

And Hitler used the example of homosexuality in nature as a justification for exterminating 6.000 gay men as they were, by his reasoning, less than human.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Amadan
He'd have a pretty easy time of it. Chimps of both sexes have been observed *ahem* enjoying themselves alone.

No, because as you can see by his posts, he says that just because it occurs in nature doesn't mean it is natural. Therefore, by his own logic, one could arbitrarily determine his monkey-spanking is an unnatural perversion, even if chimps do it. What I am pointing out is the arbitrary definition of what is natural and what isn't.

And the Nazi persecution of homosexuals wasn't quite that simplistic--they had many rationales, often conflicting, for why the eliminated anyone.

[DinoDoc]

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't a researcher already looked at the brain structure of gay men and found insufficient evidence to support the conclusion the it influences sexuality? Or have I likely missed something?