lol the argument is not on the merits of reproduction, it's whether or not homosexuality is evolutionarily viable. There are EvoPsych theories that account for it. Simple as. Of course reproduction is necessary for propagation. No one is arguing that homosexuality is or could be the dominant mode of sexual orientation. I say you're conflating the individual and the species-wide because you don't seem to be able to differentiate between an individual homosexual not reproducing and a species that contains homosexuality reproducing.
Economic theory?? Are you talking about the term "free rider"? That's not solely an economic phenomenon...The point is that children use more resources than they contribute. Having certain members of the population not contribute children but still contribute all other forms of work makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. It makes the civilization more efficient. It's the same reason you can trace the particular evolution of human civilizations to the fact we don't have litters of kids.
No, of course I'm not arguing that sexual orientation is "purely" socially conditioned. That's why I highlighted posturing and activity. In my hypothetical, the heterosexual's sexual orientation wouldn't actually change, just as a gay man in the closet is still gay. As for your "purpose derives from bodily ability" argument, yes, the male body is designed to ejaculate sperm when orgasm is reached, and the female body is designed to be impregnated. My argument is that those are not the only things the male and female bodies are designed to do, and reducing something as all-encompassing as purpose or mental health to that sole function is absurd. Again, the human body is designed to shyt and piss, but we don't ascribe existential purpose to excretion.
The bolded is where your argument falls apart, and is why I said you seem to think all homosexuals secretly want to be heterosexual. You seem to think that the bolded applies to all homosexuals. That homosexuality in abstract is a mental illness because certain homosexuals who want to procreate through heterosexual intercourse are not inclined to. Firstly, if this is the sole cause of homosexual mental anguish, then that's a pretty weak illness. Most people, homo or hetero, don't think about creating children to the degree that an agoraphobic would have to encounter the outdoors, or someone with body dysmorphia is confronted by their own image. Secondly, what do you say of heterosexuals who have no desire to have children? Are they mentally ill too?
And I am not wrong about phobia. Thinking of the stimulus is still encountering the stimulus. That's why watching a scary movie can invoke fear, even though you're not actually confronting the killer/monster/whatever. When the agoraphobic is not thinking about outdoors, they're not in anguish. If they were, they would not have agoraphobia, but rather a general anxiety disorder. When the acrophobic is not thinking about heights, they're not in anguish. If they were, they would not have acrophobia, but rather a general anxiety disorder.
You in fact did not use body dysmorphia correctly when you attempted to compare it to homosexuality. The illness in the body dysmorphic is located in their obsession with a false bodily image, and anxiety at not being able to reconcile their body in actuality with their mental perception of their body. You seem to be convinced that the homosexual is obsessed with heterosexual procreation, and they face anguish from not being able to reconcile their sexual instinct with their desire for heterosexual procreation. That's the only possible argument I can see for that comparison, and it is of course absurd, so I should hope you disabuse yourself of that argument.
If you had simply said "The human body is designed to allow heterosexual procreation" there would be no discussion to be had. Where you erred was attempting to then infer purpose or mental illness from that benign statement. If you would like to now claim your argument was never about purpose or illness but rather stating an obvious biological fact, then I will grant you that favour.
Yes, usually when I have these discussion my opponent ends up pointing to politically motivated conspiracy theories when confronted by the weight of the scientific community's consensus. You will not find a modern, reputable psychiatric source that lists homosexuality as a mental illness. It's an archaic belief that has been discarded by the scientific community. The APA took it off the DSM because independent scientific studies couldn't support the claim. Look up Evelyn Hooker's blind studies, look up cross-cultural and cross-species research done on this issue, look up the decades of ineffectual attempts to "treat" the "disease". If you are now reaching to conspiracy theory to explain your point, I think that speaks to the weakness of your position.
ok so what exactly is your argument then? Do you consider homosexuality to be a mental illness/disorder or a physical disability? Is it like autism or is it like being sterile? If you're agreeing that a homosexual can live in comfort, independently, then please locate the disability. It's only a disability in the most abstract sense of the term, as in I'm disabled because i'm not tall enough to dunk, or I don't have a womb so I can't give birth, regardless of my desire to do so. That is, unless you believe that all homosexuals secretly desire to procreate heterosexually, and their sexual orientation is stopping them from doing so. Is that what you believe? If not, you're basically saying homosexuals are disabled because they don't want to do something, even though they're fully capable of doing so. No matter how much the blind man wants to see, he can't. No matter how much the autistic wants to have normal social functionality, he can't. What is the homosexual equivalent? They can, and have historically, engaged in heterosexual intercourse at will. They have procreated. No other "illness" or disability can be discarded at will so easily.
We both agree that disabled people can live fruitful, successful lives in spite of their disability. I'm asking you to locate the disability that is inherent in homosexuality. The only way your argument makes sense is if you believe that homosexuals are inherently disabled because they have a desire (heterosexual intercourse) that is being thwarted by an impulse (homosexual orientation), thereby leading to symptoms of a mental illness (anxiety, mental anguish, etc). I'm saying that homosexuals on average do not display any of those symptoms at a higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts, and this is backed up by blind studies done on this subject. So what basis is there for diagnosing a patient showing no signs of illness? It seems like you're working backwards from an assumption.
You are right the argument isn't on the merit of reproduction. The argument also isn't about whether homosexuality is evolutionary viable either, it isn't even a argument in that matter because there is no evolution without reproduction to pass down and spread traits, homosexuality is a evolutionary dead end in that it is the cessation of life. You are right no one is arguing or claimed anyone argued homosexuality is dominant or not. You literally typed a lot of things never argued as if you are making some type of point, and still managed not to address my actual argument in a logical manner. You sidestepped again, trying to hide behind a wall of text and the hope that I don't actually read what you typed.
"Free Rider" is an economic term, its solely to do with resource consumption vs resource producers. Your usage of it literally has nothing to do with what is being discussed, its a poor attempt to take the actual conversation off course and now you are doing so deliberately because again you have no actual argument to what I'm presenting. You want to talk about benefits of homosexuality not producing children, same thing can be said for heterosexuals not producing children because they are sterile. Want to take it to the logical extreme and you get eugenicists, and according to what you are saying it would be positive as well if it reduces the "free rider" issue with children. That is what happens when you try to misapply economics, which are value neutral, into the biological or moral sphere. This is the logic you are using and again it shows the weakness of your actual argument and how it doesn't even address the point I made in any way.
Except you did argue that it was a social concept when you said that criminalization heterosexuality would decrease the number of heterosexuals and cause an increase in homosexuals. If it wasn't the result of a social conditioning it wouldn't matter what society or legality demanded the rate would stay the same as it is before a legal mandate, if it was purely a natural phenomenon or say a mental disability. As for sexual organs you say this isn't what they are designed to do? As sexual organs what else is the penis and the vagina designed to do but procreate? Now you are literally arguing against basic biology. A man's penis is designed to deposit sperm and remove potential competing sperm from a woman's vagina, which is designed to receive the sperm and give those sperm the opportunity to fertilize her eggs, which she has all the biological tools to carry that egg to maturity and feed/nurse that baby after birth. You literally have no actual biological support for your position. You keep trying to bring your morality into the matter, but we aren't have a discussion on your moral view.
The argument doesn't fall apart at all, you are attempting to create a strawman out of then air after being told your contention was wrong and it sows you simply have no intellectual integrity. There are homosexuals who want children, some get in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, some adopt, all these are remedies for their inability to have children. You seem to want to dismiss this fact that shows they are suffering from a disorder that stops them from performing biological functions they are designed to engage in. Simple facts that you want to ignore. I'll let you argue your strawman though, there simply is nothing more left to say on this matter seeing that you willfully are starting to lie again.
Thinking about a stimulus isn't encountering a stimulus. If you are scared of dogs, the thought of seeing a dog isn't the same as actually seeing a dog. This is basic though, but now it seems you are literally trying to ignore reality. A scary movie is just that a scary movie and the response will be entirely different in watching a movie of an event and living an event, entirely different. All that to say again you were wrong about agoraphobics as I previously explained and this is a poor way to try to save face. Agoraphobics don't think about heights, agoraphobia is the fear of open spaces and large crowds.
Body dysmophia was correct and correctly used. You are the one who created out of thin air the none argument that I said homosexuals want to procreate in a heterosexual manner.
The purpose of human body is to survive its environment and procreate on a biological basis this is how are bodies are the way they are and designed the way they are. You continue to want to ignore this and handwave it away, simply isn't going to work though as for reasons I've previously described.
If I was wrong about the APA you might have a point, but you know what I said is a simple fact, a board voting 13 - 0 with 2 absent votes is what took homosexuality off the list of disorders. That is all, no papers, no scientific resources, no studies, just a vote. There was no argument presented to take it off other than homosexuals were happy with themselves, that was the underlying argument and like the arguments you used in this thread, we can say that about sociopaths and psychopaths, should they not be listed as disorders as well? Next time you try an appeal to authority, try to make sure that authority doesn't have a long history of being a political body instead of a scientific one.
If you read what I posted you would see what I've argued and where I stand, I haven't hidden it. I can only think you started arguing for the sake of arguing, which is why in the last post you actually argued it was a result of social conditioning, something I said could quite possibly be the case if not a mental disorder. If it is mental it is most definitely a disorder in the same sense that sterility is a very real documented medical issue in men and women for the variety of reasons they physically exist.
Living enjoyable and productive lives doesn't matter to me and was never argued by me, its a pointless aside you introduced. Homosexuals are disabled because of their mental disorder they can not reproduce as a normal thinking human with no physical aliments could. Simple as that.
