I don’t think that’s the argument. It’s more like:
90% of people are attracted to people with whom it is at least theoretically possible to produce children.
10% of people are attracted to people with whom it isn’t theoretically possible to produce children.
Therefore, since producing children is necessary for the species to survive then they have a disorder.
IMO, the argument fails because there’s no need to produce children with the person you are in a relationship with, it ignores the hetero couples who are too old to have kids or have no interest in having kids, and no particular couple having children is required for the species to survive.
But not a sexuality disorder. There are a lot of reasons for infertility - and almost none of them have to do with the act of having sex. Usually its a low sperm count, or a hormonal disorder, or uterine or cervical abnormalities - and often its “we can’t figure it out…”
By the way, this is the medical definition of disorder:
• Disorder, in contrast, denotes a condition characterized by functional impairment without structural change and, while certain disorders or categories of disorders might be accompanied by specific signs and symptoms, their presence is not required for a condition to be termed a disorder. Like condition, disorder is sometimes used as a value-neutral term in place of disease.
So what about homosexuality grants a functional impairment? It isn’t fertility, as gay men and women can produce kids if they choose. They hold jobs, they go grocery shopping, they participate fully in a non-homophobic society. They can even have heterosexual sex if they choose.
This was my reaction to the OP as well. IMHO it’s a misuse of the word “disorder.” If it doesn’t prevent a person from being healthy and well-adjusted as an individual and a member of society, I wouldn’t call it a disorder regardless of how it affects that individual’s ability to contribute to the propagation of its genes.
Functional impairment we’re talking about is being not able to naturally procreate with a loved one. I guess we all agree there’s a limitation like that (though there’re a number of workarounds). The question is whether this limitation is critical enough to call it a disorder? In my opinion it is not.
But they are able to do so – this has been pointed out multiple times. Gay people can and do procreate naturally (unless you redefine “naturally” to an absurd degree).
Yes they are – you are wrong. Do you really believe that there are not gay men who have female loved ones? Do you really believe that no closeted, married gay man loved his wife (even if he was not romantically attracted to her)?
It seems to me you’re talking about bisexuals or at least homosexuals who are not #6 at Kinsey scale. I personally know strict homosexuals and many of them find the idea of having sex with a woman disgusting.
As long as people can raise a child with their love one I don’t see this as a significant issue. Certainly not something that rises to the level of a disorder and clearly not a sexuality disorder.
Well, I’m that friend, so I want to clear some points.
I was speaking about homosexuality in a pure biological way. Since homosexuality is a natural thing, I assume that we should apply the same logic to let’s say humans, and bonobo and swans.
Strict homosexual will not procreate in a wild, since he will not choose a correct partner to do it. Here I mostly talk about male species, since a female one can be raped.
Procreation is one of the important functions of a species, so if a species will not procreate in a wild I assume that something is not right.
I don’t think that everybody MUST procreate, this is always a personal decision, but if somebody is not intended to procreate by his nature - it’s a different thing (at least for me).
I understand the reasons not to treat homosexuality as a disorder, but this is my personal opinion and I have never promoted it. Indeed, in discussions with homophobes I stand by the medical point of view, telling that homosexuality is not a disorder or disease.
But I have to admit, that almost all the discussion was pointless :), because “aberrant” (big thanks to monstro) is a much better word for what I mean, it’s just sad that there is no such word in Russian, that we used in our original discussion (well, you can translate it somehow, but not exactly).
No, I’m talking about homosexuals in general. Not being sexually attracted doesn’t mean a homosexual man can’t love a woman. Plenty of gay men who had zero sexual attraction to women nonetheless had great affection and love (just not of the romantic variety) for individual women, and have “naturally” procreated with them, whether out of a sense of duty/obligation or desire for children.
There is no “wild” with humans, or if there is, we’re already living in it. Some gay men can/will choose to procreate with a woman, even if they are not attracted to them. Just like some straight men will choose to procreate with a certain woman that they are not sexually attracted to. Statistically, probably more straight men procreate biologically, but gay people are still capable of doing so “naturally”, and sometimes do so.
FWIW, historically southpaws have been discriminated against as well - from rumors of their shiftiness and natural untrustworthiness in the West and of bringing bad luck in much of Asia to, more recently, being forced by schoolmarms to do stuff the “right” way (see ? It evens seeped into the language ;)), often via violent coercion. I.e. kids getting physically punished when they were caught writing or cutting with their left hands.
Is being left-handed a profound difference ? Well, yes, actually. Our brains aren’t wired like right handed people’s, on a basic level, which affects more in our lives, aptitudes and personalities than just which hand we are more adept at wanking with. And we need different tools to perform the same work, because y’alls shit is all backwards :p.
Is it a disorder, i.e. something that impairs orderly function in society ? Well, no, not really, not as such.
Of course you’re right, but that is what I have mentioned at the first point - I apply the same logic to humans and chimpanzee. Is there “wild” with chimpanzee?
While you have a slight factual error in #2 (men can be raped, too), #3 is where your train of logic goes off the rails.
Invalid assumption. Procreation is one of the most important functions of a species, yes. But you then make an unsupported leap to individuals.
One reproductive strategy is to have every individual reproduce. That’s what bacteria do, and lizards that reproduce by parthogenesis.
Anther reproductive strategy is to have most individuals not reproduce, but together work to raise the offspring of a few. Bees do this; only one female and a half dozen males from each hive ever reproduce, while thousands of other females never do, but devote their energy to feeding, nurturing and raising the Queen’s offspring.
Humans’ reproductive strategy is somewhere in the middle. Most of us breed, but a great many do not, for myriad reasons. It could be (and has been) argued that having homosexuals in one’s family was an adaptive mutation that allowed for greater resources to be devoted to fewer offspring, emphasizing quality over quantity.
Well, it’s not true because of the definition of the “wild”.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that humans are far more rational then other animals, so they tend to better understand their difficulties and solve them. At the same time wild animal will not procreate without appetence to the opposite sex.
Sure they can, but it does not lead to procreation in overhelming majority of the cases.
Yes, it can be true, but as I know humans (as well as chimpanzees) have no distinct roles in terms of breeding and raising the offspring. I think that it’s mostly an explanation of why “homosexuality genes” (if they exist) did not vanish during the evolution, and actually the hypothesis about higher fecundity of non-parental female relatives of homosexual men looks more plausible to me.
By the way, there is a good example of how homosexuality can be efficient in procreation - black swans. But I don’t think that their strategy can be directly applied to humans (well, it could, but it seems that it was not).
There is nothing that isn’t “wild” in terms of biology. Ants make anthills, beavers make dams, bees make hives, and humans make cities. We’re more complex and destructive in our choice of building materials, and we’re the only animal to have invented permits and building codes, but we’re far from the only animals to radically alter our environment to something we prefer to live in.
This is incorrect. Many animals rape, and they often impregnate their victims during those rapes. The females’ appetance is entirely irrelevant to whether she’s gong to have sex or conceive.
The most extreme example of this I know is bedbugs. The female is literally stabbed in the abdomen and impregnated through the hole. A bedbug who has been attacked like this several times is likely to die, and those that survive lay fewer eggs due to scarring. So the females run away from males to avoid this injury. Their procreative sex is always rape.
(I didn’t know the word “appetence” until just now. What a beautiful word! Thank you for introducing me to it.)
