Biologically speaking, why is homosexuality not considered an abnormality in the world of science? The purpose of a man and a woman is for reproduction. We have special body parts that are made for that, so how is it then for two people of the same gender to be attracted together and not considered an abnormality?? It's so obvious yet the world of science simply ignores it. How is this abnormality accepted without any sort of defiance in the scientific community? Also, what's truly the percentage of people who are homosexuals (including women) only because of something wrong with them physically and not because of social trends?
Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Nobody denies homosexuality is "abnormal" in the sense that it's relatively uncommon. But to describe any behavioral trait as good or bad is moralizing which is unscientific by definition.
>>16960810Like 99% of everything (you) have done in your entire life is "abnormal" in the sense that the human animal didn't evolve for that purpose. You think humans evolved to make shitpost threads on internet forums?
>>16960833No, it was considered a pathology by the APA until 1973 when it was removed from the DSM as they no longer considered it a pathology and just saw it as a variation of human sexuality. So where are the sexual organs located on people who want to reproduce with the person of the same sex? pseudo intellectual dumb fuck.
>>16960843So walking is abnormal? Talking is abnormal? What tf are you talking about are you stupid? So what's the 1% that's normal then?
>>16960810>The purpose of a man and a womanLol, that's like saying the purpose of a warm block is to heat up the cooler block next to it. There is no "purpose" in science buddy. Things just happen cause they're likely to happen, and they're constrained from things that cannot happen.
>>16960810I don't think it should be considered pathological given that I'm pretty sure it evolved among humans for a reason and is simply no longer beneficial. In hunter-gatherer societies, homosexuals would, in theory, work while largely not competing for sexual partners nor reproducing. I don't think it's a coincidence that homosexuality is related to birth order, nor that niger-congo peoples, who started farming 5kya, *seem* to be significantly gayer than other groups.
>>16960859This isn't moralizing, this isn't biology, and the field responsible for pathologizing behaviors isn't concerned with whether you're breeding. You are committing three category errors at once here. The field you should be asking is psychiatry.Pathologies are defined by the distress they cause in the person affected by them or the distress in others caused by people who are affected. This is inherently somewhat arbitrary but the reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM is because it's now generally understood that the source of distress among gays is from society's treatment of them and not the "affliction" itself. Those that are distressed by the existence of gays are now seen as the problem as the distaste is perceived as irrational.
>>16960810Purple regions, the males must transition into females to become gay
There are species like ants where the vast majority of individuals can't reproduce at all.
>>16960810Science does consider homosexuality an abnormality and a genetic error.The lefties on reddit are not Scientists even though they claim they are. Lol.
>>16960884Yes because that is how their ant species works. All humans are supposed to reproduce because we are not ants lol.
>>16960874Maybe in pink/purple regions one of the couples could become trans without surgery.
>>16960894Scientifically, nothing's "supposed to" do anything. They just do what they do. Either you breed or you don't. Good or bad are not scientific categories.
>>16960894Organisms are supposed to pass on their genes, but reproducing isn't the only way to do that. Family members share genes with each other, so if you help your family member reproduce then you're also passing down some of your own genes.
>>16960859>APAAh, that's your mistake. This is a *science* board, not a psychiatry one
>>16960810The gene that makes you crave benis also makes your sister crave benis. Working as intended.
>>16960874This has been a thing for a while in Iran where transitioning is legal but homosexuality is not.
>>16960894>that is how their ant species worksWho decided that?
>there are women who enjoyed being cummed inside
>>16960810Purple countries:"No fags allowed but we can't deny a little woman-on-woman action is hot."
>>16960810>Biologically speakingThe thing is that biology as a discipline is torn theoretically between making theoretical speculations about teleology or about a rational universe where things happen because of and for reasons and causes although the the empirical observation of nature and empirical experiment reveals disorder or chaos or difference on basic assumptions and in contrast to the methodology of the scientific method which often tends to short circuit teleology by making teleology atemporal such that to speak of purpose in biology is always to risk agreeing or starting a fight with an aristotelian, i’m not sure which outcome would be worst probably
>>16960810>The purpose of a man and a woman is for reproduction.are we that stupid simple ?
>>16960961>transitioning is legal but homosexuality is notthat's actually a meme in Iran, their treatment of homosexuals is more akin to balkan/russian shitholes>>16961561they don't think lesbians can have meaningful sex (half right i guess)
>>16960810because those who control the science narrative wouldn't be pleased about it
>>16961561amogus
>>16960871Eh. Gay sex is harmful. It's a major disease vector, drastically so. Even if you're pro gay rights you should warn your gay son to be a volcel. It's obviously a mental illness in that it causes you to have urges which lead to very high likelihoods of disease, especially for bottoms.
>>16964750These are behavioral and not necessarily orientational. You can reduce the risk of disease transfer drastically by simply wearing a condom.
>>16960810just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's abnormal, even though it's clearly abnormal. and making it illegal means that it's an actual problem.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FgxacX72snA
>>16964750All sex is a disease vector you big dummy
>>16964750By your logic, you should be wearing a mask when you feel sniffly and every time there's a public health notice, because your lungs are a disease vector.
We can objectively say homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end and a genetic defect from that standpoint, and therefore from a purely evolutionary perspective undesirable.
>>16960859Psychology is not quite a scientific field.>just saw it as a variation of human sexualityThere you go, they described what they observed and labelled as such, rather than define it as 'incorrect' (which doesn't exist in science; things are observed and recorded).
>>16964841Homosexual couples can have kids you silly billy
>>16960860Wow you're a legitimate retard lol
>>16960833>Science is descriptive, not prescriptiveTell that to psychiatry. https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/homosexuality-is-a-mental-illness?utm_source=publication-search
>>16964845No, they can't. Stop being disingenuous.>>16964843It definitely is, sociologyfag. What? Are there 72 genders or 73?
>>16960810Does the act of two (consenting) men having sex hurt anyone? Ask yourself this before making such a retarded rant. This isn’t even remotely a threat. What’s a threat is politicizing it and pretending degeneracy is normal. But the act of two (consenting) bodies rubbing against each other isn’t inherently threatening.I don’t even like gay people normally. I’m still pointing out how retarded homophobia is. Eighty percent of giraffes are gay.
Because its more related to metaphysical workings
>>16960871>because it's now generally understood that the source of distress among gays is from society's treatment of them and not the "affliction" itself. A number of disorders may be argued to be associated with suffering because of social mistreatment including schizoid personality disorder, autism, PTSD, borderline, attachment disorders and similarly. Anyway, this wasn't really the reason why homosexuality was removed as a disease. You conveniently omit three things; 1. the heavy lobbying by gay activists themselves, 2. financial pressure from banks and think tanks which regarded homosexuality as a useful tool to combat overpopulation and 3. funnily enough, a desire by some psychiatrists to depathologize homosexuality so that it could be treated as a moral pathology, e.g. something for which you could imprison people. By the '70s, it also became problematic to actively discriminate against disabled people with homosexuality technically constituting a disability as well.Needless to say, although the APA removed homosexuality as a disease category per se, it introduced, in 1973, another category, something along the line of paraphilic disorder or disorder of sexual attraction, which allowed homosexuality to be treated as a pathology when it caused "suffering".>Those that are distressed by the existence of gays are now seen as the problem as the distaste is perceived as irrational.Again, as has become clear from what I've written so far, there's two issues. 1. It is not up to psychiatry to determine the 'locus' where a problem emanates from. By doing so, psychiatry leaves any pretense of scientific conduct, instead trading it for a moralizing position where now psychiatry decides what is acceptable and what is not.2. This argument is only incoherently applied because it does not appear with a lot of other issues where, in fact, the notion of suffering brought on by social stigmatization might be argued to be just as extreme like addiction disorders.
>>16966244You're contradicting yourself three times in four sentences. If I wasn't sure that you're a bot, I would call you a retard.
generally speaking from a scientific standpoint, homosexuality is an abnormally but so are things like being far sighted, having adhd, liking nonsexual body parts in a sexual way, etc. but obviously, calling any of these things an 'abnormality' would cause people to flip tf out, so they're treated like normal. Any real homosexual (non groomed into it) will tell you that it is not the factory setting lol
>>16964767Not all sex gives you AIDS.
>>16964757Gays could also abstain. But, they clearly don't.
>>16966850He hasn’t contradicted himself once. You appear to be a doofus.
Sometimes you really just want to smell and taste a dick ok it’s not really all that complicated
>>16960871The distress criterion point is the real one. The removal argument that holds is simpler than people think: if the distress is caused by the response of others and not by the state itself, you are treating a social problem as a medical one. Whether this is applied consistently is a separate and legitimate question. The addiction comparison is not wrong. It is not applied consistently and that is a real objection.>>16960833This is correct but incomplete. Science being descriptive does not mean science cannot identify statistical deviation. It means deviation carries no moral weight from the description alone. These are different claims and conflating them makes the argument weaker than it needs to be.
>>16960833Establishing the harm or benefit of a trait and deducing whether or not it is good or bad is entirely amoral and doing so is not unscientific by any definition. You sound like a low IQ religious moron. Nooo you can't draw conclusions from observations and use that data to science because that's heckin playing god. You are not intelligent.
Men are just more exciting than women.
>>16960810fag
Listen I have my own working theory but it's a mess of /his/lit/sci/x/ content.At the end of the day abuse will not make me change my desire for men and only men.
>>16973914You get looshed or something?
>>16960810>why is homosexuality not considered an abnormality in the world of science?But it was considered an abnormality by "the world of science", until it wasn't. That should tell you everything about how useful it is to argue about the "normality"/"abnormality" of faggotry.
How gay a species of animal is depends entirely on the animal Giraffes….
