Why isn't being gay seen as a mental illness? > Because

>>8769970
>muh biological purpose

Proof women's only place in life is being filthy breeding sows producing Children of the Trough desu.

>wanting off-spring

Kill yourself

>why isn't being gay seen as a mental illness?
Because the American Psychological Association, along with many other respected psychological institutes, said so.

But you'll blame this on da j00000s because something about a flat earth, the bible and your lack of education regarding both biology and psychology.

In short, you're just a retard who doesn't know what he's talking about.

/thread

I have been propositioned by enough real dads to know that many gay men reproduce. For most of history gay men have been fucking women for babies and fucking men for fun. It has only been in the last few decades that gay identity has progressed far enough that being single and not having kids is okay. So really not having kids is a choice.

Are career women mentally ill if they decide to focus on their career and not have children? As more and more couples decide to not have children is this a sign of growing mental illness? There is a growing number of men getting vasectomies before having children, is not shooting your DNA into a woman every time mental illness?

>>8769970
is being infertile a mental illness?

>>8769970
Why isn't not having as many kids as you can afford seen as a mental illness?

File: molybdememe.png (54KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x534px

>>8770001
>Because the American Psychological Association, along with many other respected psychological institutes, said so.

>>8770009

Because r-selection and k-selection are both viable human reproductive strategies.

Because it's not a mental illness. Being in love and having sexual relations with another consenting adult human is normal human behaviour.

Now with human below age 18 is a whole another thread.

>>8769970
Plenty of straight people can't reproduce.
Whereas most gay men can and a lot do reproduce.
What is your point, freak?

>>8769970
>But there is something wrong with gay people. They generally don't reproduce. The evolved purpose of human beings is to reproduce.
>he doesn't understand Gay Uncle theory
post immediately discarded

>Captcha: select all bridges
Advice for you perhaps?

>>8770013
>I'll claim it's not an argument so I won't have to refute that these organisations basically write the DSM and thus get to decide what constitutes a mental illness
Now you can cry "muh appeal to authority" all you want, but it won't save you.

>>8770019
Humans are extremely rich these days, so the r-selection is incredibly strong. K-selection is """viable""" in the sense that if you have a bit more than two kids, you won't go extinct (yet), but an r strategy could allow you to quickly spread your genes. K only makes sense if your environment doesn't have capacity for more growth (in fact, that's where the name K comes from), and while that is a common equillibrium condition, it is not the condition we are currently in.

>>8769970
> But there is something wrong with gay people. They generally don't reproduce.
Most gay men still produce valid semen, mate. They could still reproduce. Lesbian women still produce valid eggs, mate. They could still reproduce. This is why artificial insemination was invented too. It's retards like you that give that a bad rep because big bad science is here to prove your prejudices wrong. In essence, kill yourself.

>>8769970
>So what? If we do find a cure for being gay, what would be wrong with that?
Because then we should find a cure for being straight? Why should we suffer while you fags get the luxury of changing who you are?

breeders are useless thanks to science
it's amazing how they're trying to lash out at anything they can now~

>>8770053
But Earth can only sustain a population of around 6-8 billion at the "western standard" of living, maybe 10 billion at mass poverty conditions. We're in an era where we WANT to have population equilibrium.

Because the only reasons for it being so are "muh fee-fees" and "well they can't reproduce.
First one answers itself. The latter is stupid because we can reproduce for the most part, we just don't happen to with the people we like. See gays not as the infertile, but as people in love with others who happen to be infertile. The husband of a sterile woman isn't considered disordered.
Also, any state listed as a disorder will end up with people trying to fix it. This is good when it harms oneself and others, but as homosexuality doesn't, it may just lead to billions spent on human experimentation with a miniscule chance to produce a drug aimed at 2% of the population that nobody asked for. What good would listing it as a disorder actually do? It would just distract from fixing things that are serious problems for much larger portions of the population.

>The evolved purpose of human beings is to reproduce.

Debatable. And whats the purpose of reproducing? To just keep doing it over and over again? how is that not utterly pointless?

>being infertile is also harmless to your own body and we still see it as undesirable.

undesirable to you. Not to me. I have to live my life, not you.

>>8770001
Not the OP, but that was a really salty reply totally deflecting the argument

>>8770033
And guess what exactly the purpose of love and sex is?

>>8770106
Western standards of living are ridiculously high and eventually we'll return to just barely having enough resources to survive.

File: pepe-retarded.png (54KB, 470x698px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 470x698px

>The evolved purpose of human beings is to reproduce.

Going to work is a mental illness, you can't make babies with a job

Having hobbies is a mental illness, you can't make babies with a football or a card collection.

Enjoying entertainment of any form is a mental illness, you can't make babies with a movie or a video game.

Going on vacation and traveling is a mental illness, you can't make babies with a beach or a hiking trail.

File: Screenshot_20170820-152215.png (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>8769970
Do you really live life with this gross materialistic outlook? Birth is trauma for the infant and the mother. They come out crying and covered in blood for Pete's sake but that doesn't stop us all from cheering.

Some would even say that having a child is worse than murder. Now, obviously this is a little extreme, but consider.

Murder
>Ends a life
>Ends the struggle of an organism.

Birth
>Guarantees at least one death as a result
>Causes pain to a living being that is in a state of helplessness.
>Forces another unknowing and unconsenting person into the state of deficiency called life. They will suffer, they will toil just to survive, and ultimately they will die alone despite everything. They might even have a few kids of their own to perpetuate the cycle.

And the plus side? Having a little baby doll that's half you, that you can dress up and raise and vicariously live through now that you're far too busy to have much freedom. It is sort of a perverted desire when you look at it with any degree of detachment from the human condition.


Not having children is not just some price paid by the gay/sterile/single communities. It might even be the correct moral choice. If you want to understand this viewpoint a little deeper than just the basics and shock value, you should read some Schopenhaur and hear out what he has to say.

File: Rick_Sanchez.png (693KB, 848x1080px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 848x1080px

What people call "love" is just a chemical reaction that compels animals to breed. It hits hard, then it sloowly fades, leaving you stranded in a failing marriage.

I did it. Your parents are gonna do it. Break the cycle. Rise above. Focus on science.

>>8770167
OP has no argument.
APA and some other institutes removed homosexuality from the DSM (as they hold the full authority to do just that), thus it is no longer considered a mental illness, regardless of how much he's gonna shit his pants out of sheer butthurt.

There's nothing to argue, no arguments to be made, nothing.
You can claim that APA made the wrong decision but that's it.

And the salt?
Maybe because we have tiresome retarded threads like this every day.

>>8770204
That's very sad that you think that way, but really its just a result of your depression. And your depression is just a result of physical factors; poor or improper diet, unclean environment, etc. I hope that you can one day learn to take better care of your body and also learn to manage your limiting beliefs and negative thoughts. The one who is suffering the most is you, but its only because you havent learned yet how to be positive and unlock the power that you have over your own life. Being born isn't a horror. Sure, there is suffering, but life is a unique spiritual experience for your soul to learn from. If we humans all do our best we can curb ignorance, heighten technology and art, and make each century a better and better life for the humans born in it. While also reaching the personal satisfaction of knowing that we achieved our personal potential. Reproducing and creating more humans is a beautiful thing when done carefully and in a controlled manner, since it allows humanity to continue on growing towards being the best it can be. Having children is only bad if the parents are living trapped in a state of low consciousness and negativity, which unfortunately you at this moment and many other humans on earth right now are.

>>8770204
This 100%.
What's worse, is breeders literally only create children for some selfish notion that their 'legacy' matters - or worse, they're nationalists or religious nut jobs that think they have to outbreed competition.
It's fucking disgusting.

>>8769970
The short answer is overpopulation damage control
being gay as a good visual image is perpetuated to thin out the human race until we have feasible and realistic ways of surviving here the next millennia without dying of our resources. Most gay couples are also opposed to the idea of surrogates, often turning to adoption which is a win win for everyone.

t. Mason

>>8769970
Mental illness =\= disorder

Get better bait

>>8770186
>the ONLY point of love is reproduction
Cynicism is not the same as objectivity

File: 1344073725517.gif (2MB, 250x158px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x158px

>>8770204
You're the one who needs to read his essays again. Just because you feel allured to asceticism by means of some faux transcendent naturalism promise doesn't entitle your will upon mine. I will breed and reproduce and engage in whatever hedonistic pleasures, vices as well as virtues that humanity offers as much as I want and theres absolutely nothing you can do about it. Why? Because I can. I have the power. I have the choice, the opportunity and I am the one who has to live with the consequences. Whatever polemic you've convinced yourself that my actions affect you does not concern me. That was the entire point of how he described our world as one big bubble of insatiable will.

Cogito ergo sum shitface. Get fucked.

>>8770378
>Get fucked.
I know you surely won't be getting any action anytime soon. :)

>>8770273
Oh brother, check your projection there. I was only sharing a new perspective with OP so he might reconsider the issue.

I personally do take great care with my health and mental well being. I am in touch with spirituality and the world. But that doesn't mean that the human condition isn't a state of deficiency. Living in this realm is a state of ultimate groundlessness. There is no one and nothing you can hold onto - all is becoming. We're all blowing in the wind whither we know not.

Just because the few of us have done enough consciousness work to understand and integrate this into our lives doesn't mean that we should keep spinning the wheel with everyone else. Which of the great teachers said that we should stay here to look at the trees and have children and perpetuate life? Only the god of the old testament, who said 'go forth and multiply'. But Buddha and the Hindu yogis and the gnostics all advocated for liberation of this cycle.

I know what you mean by limiting belief, but if you read my first post carefully you'll see I'm not advocating my own position, in fact I make mitigating statements because as I said the words are extreme. I'm only pointing out that there is wisdom in that viewpoint. I even gave a reference for those that were interested in further researching the philosophy.

I sympathize with your goal. Many in this age live lives of low-consciousness. But exercise a bit more humility when you try to reach out. Even a person who is asleep can tell when you're just assuming a bunch of stuff about them.

Peace.

>>8770378
Cheers friend you made me laugh.

I didn't say YOU were affecting anything. I only said that the choice not to reproduce was not a mental illness. In fact, it can be seen as the moral choice.

The will you're talking about? The power? He actually called that "the blind, irrational will to live." And it is blind. Enjoy living in that.

And have fun with your hedonism. I thought as you did once but it is in the end rather empty. One more thing though - isn't having a child also opposed to pure hedonism? You trade your ability to truly partake to protect another. In our modern world, there's hardly a greater limiter to unadulterated pleasure seeking than raising your mini-me.

>>8770187
Only if we overpopulate like retards. It's not as if it's inevitable. Kys.

I wish I posted in this thread before the rest of the stormfags showed up in full force.

Like an anon above said, it's not considered a mental illness because the APA said so.

They said so because the APA and psychology in general attempt to reduce harm to society. At some point it was determined to be more harmful to attempt to convert gays. One of the reasons for that being that because gays have no kids, they're more likely to pour work and money into the economy.

Mental illness diagnosis are reduced to things that cause societal problems, e.g. BPD, PTSD, and other things that either:
a) harm other people
b) make you unfit for work because of depression, self harm, whatever.

Ever since religion fell out of power, it is no longer important if someone creates children (religion and consummation of marriage was designed to increase the population. Increased population means more people believe your religion, so they push everyone else out of power. )

The only other thing the world considers important other than religion is money, so this is where we are now.

>>8770471
>Like an anon above said, it's not considered a mental illness because the APA said so.

This is really not an argument. The APA is not the Pope. What is the objective reasoning behind that claim?

> They said so because the APA and psychology in general attempt to reduce harm to society. At some point it was determined to be more harmful to attempt to convert gays.

Just because it's pointless or harmful to convert gays it doesn't follow they don't have a mental illness or disorder. Some disorders aren't curable.

>>8770194

All of those things contribute to your reproductive fitness and ability to be a functioning member of society.

>>8770142

> The husband of a sterile woman isn't considered disordered.

If there were a psychological condition that meant men were attracted to infertile women it would also be a big hit to their reproductive fitness. It would be a disorder.

> Also, any state listed as a disorder will end up with people trying to fix it.

Why can't we accept it's a disorder but a pretty mild one that isn't worth fixing?

>>8770053

R-strategies aren't viable in the West because they are seen as declasse and harm social status. People with 10 kids are seen as religious fanatics.

>>8770505
> Just because it's pointless or harmful to convert gays it doesn't follow they don't have a mental illness or disorder. Some disorders aren't curable.
Okay, but you can't disregard the rest of what I said bcz "muh it's a mental illness".
So what if it's a mental illness? Nobody cares except you because it causes less harm to let gay people stay gay.

The only way for something to be considered a mental illness is for the APA to put it in the DSM. APA won't put homosexuality back in the DSM because it is a waste of time and resources to diagnose and attempt to "treat" it.

>>8770505
>This is really not an argument. The APA is not the Pope.
No you're wrong.
Infallible or not, they DEFINE what a mental illness is.
Regardless of what reasoning they may have had, when they define mental illness in such a way that it excludes homosexuality, then homosexuality is simply by definition not a mental illness until they decide it is.

>>8770470
That requires authoritarian population control.

>>8770505
So what? We're rich enough to afford the social status hit.

>>8770752
>Infallible or not, they DEFINE what a mental illness is.

You are saying the APA is infallible.

If there is an objective reason for saying homosexuality is not an illness, what is it?

If there isn't, if a definition of mental illness has no reality beyond "lol it's in the DSM" then there's no reason anyone else could care about any mental illness.

>>8770752
>Infallible or not, they DEFINE what a mental illness is.

And are you saying that homosexuality was a mental illness when it was in the DSM? That all those gays were really mentally ill?

And nobody was mentally ill before there was a DSM?

Really?

>>8769970
im a misogynist

i prefer men

>>8770505
You're placing arbitrary emphasis on biological reproduction.

Even if we ignore the fact that gay people have and continue to reproduce biologically with people of the opposite sex, psychological disorders are defined by whether or not the abnormality negatively impact's the individual's mental or emotional health, or the health of those around them.

>>8770789
>You are saying the APA is infallible
The same way the state is "infallible" in the way how it defines unemployent, or hate speech.
You can disagree with it but in the end they're the ones that set the boundaries, not you.
>If there is an objective reason for saying homosexuality is not an illness, what is it?
Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

>>8770796
>And are you saying that homosexuality was a mental illness when it was in the DSM?
At that time it was.
>That all those gays were really mentally ill?
According to the definitions of mental illness back then, they were.
According to the current definition of mental illness, they were not.

if it's that hard to understand you should leave.
And I really wonder why you challenge this and not say the definition of the meter.
Why is the meter defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 seconds instead of 1/300 000 000?
Why don't you bitch about that?

Because you don't care.
You want gays to be mentally ill which is why you're bitching here.

>>8770789
I have no doubt the APA published a detailed rationale for why it was removed from the DSM. Perhaps you should review that reason if you're so interested.

>>8770858
Perhaps you should link it if you're so sure it exists and is valid.

>>8769970
#1. Gay people can reproduce

#2. The vast majority of of ants don't reproduce, but their species is doing just fine, evolution isn't like you seem to think it is, and non-reproductive members of society can still massively contribute to overall species fitness, for instance post-menopausal women

>>8771679

If they aren't inclined to reproduce, they're defective as human beings.

It might be that somehow gay men did reproduce in human history, but we'd need to see that.

Species fitness is nonsense. Fitness operates at the level of individuals and genes.

>>8770434
>giving in to one of the most base biological drives is anti-hedonistic

Top kek friend

>>8771706
You're simply wrong, fitness has been proven to operate at a group genetic level via studies of altruism and others. If one member sacrifices themselves to increase the fitness of the whole group, not only will the group's fitness as a whole rise, but so will that persons individual fitness because even if he doesn't reproduce personally, their genes are still carried on by the group at large because they share genetic information

>>8771725
Actually, group selection is mostly wrong. While it can theoretically happen, it rarely does in practice, because it is near-impossible for the numbers to work out.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism/

Altruism generally exists because of tit-for-tat-like behavior.

>>8771737

Off topic: Has Yudkowsky ever been brave enough to take on gender identity?

You'd think the rationalist crowd would be out there ripping holes in the whole doctrine, wouldn't you?

I wonder if the problem is that a lot of MtFs happen to be in that social set?

>>8771737
This doesn't really address social species behavior, and again if it's dysfunctional to not reproduce then how do you explain ant colonies where the vast majority of individuals do not reproduce at all by design?

Your assertion that reproduction is the purpose for existence is also suspect since it asserts by implication that there is a purpose to evolution/life/etc which is complete unsupported by any evidence. The reality is dysfunction is a judgement that we make and we can redraw the lines however we like.

File: twlaes2br8qxba1gt.jpg (11KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x200px

>dur muh evoved pupose

>>8771781
T H I S
H
I
S

>>8771764
>Your assertion that reproduction is the purpose for existence is also suspect since it asserts by implication that there is a purpose to evolution

We can speak of purpose to evolution because bodily structures have clear functions which increase fitness. The eye has a purpose, so does the digestive tract, so do the gonads, so does whatever part of the brain makes you attracted to the opposite sex.

Being gay means there is a problem with the brain which makes the organism ineffective at reproduction.

>Name one accomplished gay man who couldn't have done what he did if he was straight

Gay people make better music with more soul and feelings of longing, because their art is born out of struggles no straight person understands. Just ask /mu/.

File: 1351133658804.jpg (557KB, 1162x850px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 1162x850px

>>8769970
who cares about reproduction? in about two or three generations it will all be nigger or slav controlled wastelands, this reason enough to not have children, we must not make them go through something like that (also there are about three billions of people there are plenty of humans, it's a fact that we need to reproduce less or at least niggs, poos and asians need to but with their governments opposing completely homosexuality, many of them with the help of homophobic western organisations, you will only see it rise and rise)
pic related the future

>>8771747
> Off topic: Has Yudkowsky ever been brave enough to take on gender identity?
I know a guy who's talked to Yudkowsky about it, and apparently it's not really on his radar, and he's not fully convinced about Blanchard's theories, but when he learned about them he did seem to update his beliefs.

> You'd think the rationalist crowd would be out there ripping holes in the whole doctrine, wouldn't you?
So much for the supposed rationality of the rationalist community, I guess.

We're currently working on converting the entire rationalist community to Blanchardism, though. Scott Alexander is likely going to read Men Trapped in Men's Bodies at some point soon-ish, and I'm defending/pushing it in the comment section on Ozy's blog.

> I wonder if the problem is that a lot of MtFs happen to be in that social set?
Maybe. But it might also be the other way around; "Mark Taylor Saotome-Westlake" (the one rationalist who is ripping holes in the doctrine) is doing it precisely because he encountered the trans women in the rationalist community.

>>8771764
> This doesn't really address social species behavior,
What do you mean?

>and again if it's dysfunctional to not reproduce then how do you explain ant colonies where the vast majority of individuals do not reproduce at all by design?
All the individuals in the ant colony have the exact same genes. In this case, "group selection" is perfectly valid. Though it is probably easier to just treat the entire colony as a single individual.

> Your assertion that reproduction is the purpose for existence is also suspect since it asserts by implication that there is a purpose to evolution/life/etc which is complete unsupported by any evidence. The reality is dysfunction is a judgement that we make and we can redraw the lines however we like.
The way I see it is that evolution sucked at encoding its purpose into us, so we don't really care much about it. On the other hand, the people who do care about it will eventually "win".

>>8770231
I love Rick and mroty!!

>>8771747
>>8771960
Also, even better, I *might* be able to convince Zinnia Jones about it. At least, she's willing to listen even if she doesn't agree with everything I say.

>>8769990
Fpbp

>>8769970
>But there is something wrong with gay people. They generally don't reproduce. The evolved purpose of human beings is to reproduce.
>If you're infertile, it's seen as a disorder. Being gay makes you less fit.
Why the fuck would you wanna reproduce? The Earth is overpopulated as it is and humans have done nothing but pollute it.
If anything, gays and infertile people are a blessing.

>>8771791
Evolved purpose means nothing tough, any mutation to any organism during reproduction could be considered dysfunction by this measure, since it does not fit the specifications of the progenitor organism, there is no real purpose to anything in biology, there is only happy coincidence. Your assertion that there is some higher purpose that can be violated by certain developments is just wrong headed.

>>8769970
reproduction is not the sole purpose for all humans. If you had to pick one thing for all humans to strive for it would be the passing of ideas and values that maintain proper morals on how to live life. Not reproducing like a fat cow shooting out 10 kids in the hopes they make money for your lazy fat ass.

>>8769970
>But there is something wrong with gay people. They generally don't reproduce. The evolved purpose of human beings is to reproduce.
So priests are mentally ill? People who don't want children?

>>8770001
> implying the APA isn't a jewish puppet

File: imnotsayingopisafaggotbutopisafaggot.jpg (30KB, 553x484px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 553x484px

>>8769990
>>8769995
>>8770004
>>8770009
>>8770013
>>8770019
>>8770033
>>8770040
>>8770043
>>8770049
>>8770053
>>8770067
>>8770072
>>8770087
>>8770106
>>8770142
>>8770146
>>8770167
>>8770186
>>8770187
>>8770194
>>8770204
>>8770231
>>8770255
>>8770273
>>8770291
>>8770332
>>8770346
>>8770352
>>8770378
>>8770398
>>8770404
>>8770434
>>8770470
>>8770471
>>8770505
>>8770525
>>8770752
>>8770759
>>8770789
>>8770796
>>8770802
>>8770808
>>8770848
>>8770858
>>8771634
>>8771679
>>8771706
>>8771713
>>8771725
>>8771737
>>8771747
>>8771764
>>8771781
>>8771788
>>8771791
>>8771809
>>8771862
>>8771960
>>8771965
>>8771976
>>8771984
>>8771985
>>8771994
>>8772084
>>8773170
>>8773298


hello fellow faggots
just a quick reminder that the prople making this biard so shitty and stupid are nit the people who are shitposting, its the people replying to obvious baits.
thank you for your time, please end this now.
also saged that shit