Is gayness a birth defect?

[CLAX1911]

What then is atypical?

Google it

 

[maquiscat]

Google it

I already had. All that came back is: "not representative of a type, group, or class." Which still doesn't answer at what point does something objectively move from atypical to typical. You yourself said that a paraphilia involves behaviors that are atypical in nature. Given that homosexuality is only 10% at best, that would then be atypical behavior, and thus by your own words, a paraphilia.

 

[CLAX1911]

I already had.

If you don't understand the word or the explanation of how I used it.

I've done everything I can to help you understand.

At this point there simply is no hope either you are being obstinate (likely) or it's beyond my ability to communicate.

I bore of your tedious word games.

 

[Ouroboros]

I already had. All that came back is: "not representative of a type, group, or class." Which still doesn't answer at what point does something objectively move from atypical to typical. You yourself said that a paraphilia involves behaviors that are atypical in nature. Given that homosexuality is only 10% at best, that would then be atypical behavior, and thus by your own words, a paraphilia.

Interesting history of the word "paraphilia" from the Etymology Dictionary:

paraphilia (n.) 1913, apparently coined by Austrian ethnologist Friedrich S. Krauss (1859-1938) as lit. "inverted instinct," from Gk. para- "beside, aside" (see PARA- (Cf. para-)) + philos "loving" see -PHILE (Cf. -phile)).
The neurotic whose accompanying fancies always lead into forbidden ground (and this is what constitutes the guilt feeling of pollutions) fights against masturbation [pollutions] because it is connected with incest fancies, criminal desires, perversions, or as F.S. Krauss calls them, paraphilias. [Wm. J. Robinson, M.D., "Masturbation -- Injurious or Harmless," "American Journal of Urology," May 1913]
Popularized in psychology circles in English from c.1918 in translation of work by Viennese-born psychotherapist Wilhelm Stekel (1868-1940); not in widespread use until 1950s. first used in "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" in 1980, as a morally neutral and more dignified label than PERVERSION (Cf. perversion), to which it is nonetheless etymologically similar.

Another source claimed that Krauss's context was that a paraphilia was meant to circumvent procreation. Of course this might be an overstatement. If a hetero couple has genital sex after a BDSM session, the result may well be procreation. And of course we now have ways to engender procreation medically, without sexual interaction as such. Maybe it would be closer to the mark to state that in most if not all paraphilias, there's more emphasis on whatever thing stimulates sexual desire than on the endgame of making a baby.

 

[maquiscat]

Interesting history of the word "paraphilia" from the Etymology Dictionary:



Another source claimed that Krauss's context was that a paraphilia was meant to circumvent procreation. Of course this might be an overstatement. If a hetero couple has genital sex after a BDSM session, the result may well be procreation. And of course we now have ways to engender procreation medically, without sexual interaction as such. Maybe it would be closer to the mark to state that in most if not all paraphilias, there's more emphasis on whatever thing stimulates sexual desire than on the endgame of making a baby.

The concept is probably taking into account that various acts can be combined, as well as exercised independently. Thus a paraphilia can be use/done in conjunction with a procreation act, but does not require the procreation act to do. So it can be looked at separate from any procreation act. And under that idea as bolded, then homosexuality would indeed be a paraphilia.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nothing esoteric about my definition, unless you care to define your terms.

I already did in post 1095

The proof as I said would be statistical, as in, “not that many people have this thing.”

For paraphilia? That's a made-up definition that has nothing to do with this psychoanalytic meaning.

So my question is why would you use a term that came from the science you hold no regard for instead of just making up your own?

 

[Ouroboros]

I already did in post 1095

For paraphilia? That's a made-up definition that has nothing to do with this psychoanalytic meaning.

So my question is why would you use a term that came from the science you hold no regard for instead of just making up your own?

Your terms didn't make any sense, for the reasons I already detailed. Sorry you're married to them, but that's not my problem.

 

[CLAX1911]

Your terms didn't make any sense, for the reasons I already detailed. Sorry you're married to them, but that's not my problem.

So I take it when you say it it means nothing fair enough.

 

[Ouroboros]

So I take it when you say it it means nothing fair enough.

The only “it” I found meaningless was your definition of paraphilias in terms of people who didn’t have them.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Currently a socially accepted disorder; nurture not nature.

What is your definition of socially accepted? I know lots of folks don't accept it and even more don't approve.

 

[Lisa]

What is your definition of socially accepted? I know lots of folks don't accept it and even more don't approve.

The majority of society is positive about LGBTQ rights. Nobody cares about the acceptance or approval of your church. If your church doesn't accept or approve that means that you can make other plans on the day of the local Pride parade. They dont have to ask permission from you or anyone else to be who they are, nor does your church and the right to try to discriminate against them. Why cant you just leave people alone to be happy? Your omniscient and omnipotent god made them this way, so take a hint and love his creations as he would love you.



Maybe you should obey Jesus's teachings or would that be a violation of your religious beliefs.

Matthew7:12, Luke 6:31. Matthew 25:40.

 

[Bees Nees]

Since it happens in nature I say no

Birth defects happen in nature.

Also it sounds like you're yet again falsely conflating nature, as in "existing in the nature world" with some concepts of "natural law", when in reality the two things have nothing to do with one another.

 

[Bees Nees]

If you were a professional horse breeder and your young stud that you had invested a small fortune in was only interested in attempting to breed other males, would you say it had a birth defect?

Whatever type of defect you're alluding to, arguing that it's primarily or solely a "birth defect" is rather debatable.

 

[Antiwar]

With respect:

Wow, I missed this doozy of a thread.

Can Horses Be Gay? (Answered!) - Horse Answer

Sexual behaviors in animals can be a really interesting topic. Observing how animals interact with one another in this most intimate of acts can shed light on the whole of nature and how it operates. My son got me thinking about this, recently, when he noticed that two of our male horses had...

horseanswer.com

 

[Hari Seldon]

If you were a professional horse breeder and your young stud that you had invested a small fortune in was only interested in attempting to breed other males, would you say it had a birth defect?

I think ignorance and stupidity could be birth defects.

 

[Lakryte]

The OP might as well be asking this:

 

[CLAX1911]

The only “it” I found meaningless was your definition of paraphilias in terms of people who didn’t have them.

I didn't present my definition I don't have esoteric definitions.

Maybe it's because I don't desperately need to suggest everything I disagree with is some sort of defect mental illness or brokenness.

I guess I'm just not that much of a snowflake.

 

[Ouroboros]

I didn't present my definition I don't have esoteric definitions.

Maybe it's because I don't desperately need to suggest everything I disagree with is some sort of defect mental illness or brokenness.

I guess I'm just not that much of a snowflake.

You don’t have any definitions because to you the discussion is just an excuse to get triggered. Thanks for incarnating the very essence of snowflakery.

 

[Court Jester]

Since it happens in nature I say no

How is nature benefited by it? Aberrant animal behavior serves no more purpose to nature any more than aberrant human behavior does.

So, back to the original question: is it a defect to be abberant? In animals maybe it is? In humans capable of higher reason, couldn't it just be a choice?

 

[CLAX1911]

How is nature benefited by it?

that is the question isn't it. Nature keeps it around for some reason so maybe it's something you don't understand.

I would suggest pleotropy. Perhaps the reason why tiny number of any given species and some homosexual is because a genetic effect driving the species to mate as much as possible. And the detriment caused by less than 1% of the species being gay is not outweighed by the benefits of those more ready to breed.

That's hypothetical but that's all we have

Aberrant animal behavior serves no more purpose to nature any more than aberrant human behavior does.

you would have a point if it didn't persist within the species since you don't really know what causes a statistically insignificant minority to be homosexual can't really say it serves no purpose in nature it may very well serve a very important purpose.

So, back to the original question: is it a defect to be abberant? In animals maybe it is? In humans capable of higher reason, couldn't it just be a choice?

well if it's just a choice why aren't all of them men who are unable to meet with women gay.

Estimates put the percentage of men that don't ever have sex with women at 16% if it's a choice why don't they just choose to be gay. Why is there such thing as mgtow and incel? I've seen the guys that call themselves this to get all the sex they want if they were gay.

Why does nature breed more males than it needs? If 16% of them never made that's far more aberrant gun bust that 1% of them being gay. It would seem that if there were more gay and and possibly more gay women that would serve a natural purpose to help these people that never get delayed deal with their desire.

To understand nature you have to look at the species as a whole not individuals that do something that you don't understand. And the big picture they are far less significant than the amount of time and value people spend I'm thinking about it.
.

 

[CLAX1911]

I think ignorance and stupidity could be birth defects.

Mental disorder.

 

[Court Jester]

To understand nature you have to look at the species as a whole not individuals that do something that you don't understand. And the big picture they are far less significant than the amount of time and value people spend I'm thinking about it.
.

Nature has a whole has already figured all this out, and anyone who looks at the male and female anatomy, and then further understands the biology, also uderstands that which is preferred, over what is less than preferred.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nature has a whole has already figured all this out, and anyone who looks at the male and female anatomy, and then further understands the biology, also uderstands that which is preferred, over what is less than preferred.

Nature isn't capable of having preference. What occurs simply is what occurs.

If there was some problem in nature by this it would have stopped occurring at one point

 

[Court Jester]

Nature isn't capable of having preference. What occurs simply is what occurs.

Good point, and that depends of course on what one believes may or may not be in control of the nature. Random design, or intelligent design.

 

[maquiscat]

How is nature benefited by it? Aberrant animal behavior serves no more purpose to nature any more than aberrant human behavior does.

Your lack of understanding the purpose does not negate the presence of the purpose.

So, back to the original question: is it a defect to be abberant?

Not necessarily. After all being left handed is aberrant

In animals maybe it is? In humans capable of higher reason, couldn't it just be a choice?

Is left handed a choice?