Homosexuality: Prove that it is/isn't an illness?

Then left-handedness and blue eyes are illnesses.

Tbh, the closest I can think of to homosexuality being unnatural is anal sex being unnatural due to no juices formed there and the prostate is there to make people like pooing

Then left-handedness and blue eyes are illnesses.

No, it isn't.

Regarding the prostate or that anal sex can be considered natural?

I am talking about when you wrote "prostate is there to make people like pooing".

it is just not the natural psychological instinct of a human.
with regards to evolution and reproduction, obviously it is not a beneficial behaviour, however with modern technologies, i wouldn't call it negative by any means.

the prostate is there to make people like pooing

it is just not the natural psychological instinct of a human.

Well for a species which lives in a social group like humans do, you could argue kin selection allows fora small instance of homosexuality in the population to be beneficial, or at least not negative.

I don't think you can really substantiate that comment. Natural is a damnably hazy and rather unscientific word in this context, but if we are to use it, then it is obviously natural given it occurs naturally in humans and in the animal kingdom. Humans have been doing this since before the dawn of time, it's not like it's artificially created.

On the issue of instinct, my instinct of obviously homosexual. When I see a really hot guy, say, on the beach, my animal instinct is saying "**** his brains out", and obviously drawing my attention to the more arousing aspects of his anatomy. This isn't some contrived, sexless desire, it's visceral, animalistic lust

apologies, i think "natural instinct" was an incorrect phrase to use in this instance.
maybe conventional would be a better word
what i meant was of course homosexuality occurs in humans and has done throughout our entire existence (i assume), however it is not the "typical" behaviour - not a bad thing obviously, but a i said, not a generally conventional frame of mind.

but anyway, going back to the original question, as i mentioned earlier, it is not an illness, merely a psychological abnormality.

i hate it when people say 'its unnatural'. this is not a valid argument. it just means YOU personally arent comfortable with doing it - but why should your beliefs stop anybody else doing it, if they want to?

I read the act which led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental illness in the UK. It was a long time ago, but I do remember it stating that homosexuality cannot be considered a disease as homosexuality is the only symptom and it isn't linked to any other mental illness.

I'm not sure abnormality is the right word. It's atypical but entirely within the normal variations you find, similar to left-handedness or gingerism. It's normal to find homosexuals within any given population. Abnormal would be if it were unusual or unexpected to find homosexuality in any given population group.

And I'd question whether it's a psychological issue, that has been rejected by medical and psychological experts. We clearly do not understand the mechanism/s that drive sexuality but it does appear to have a biological/physiological component, either genetic or environmental.

interesting post; i agree partly.

i would call it more of a psychological abnormality than an illness.
don't misunderstand however; an abnormality does not have to be a negative thing.
it is merely not the typical nature of humans.

it is just not the natural psychological instinct of a human.
with regards to evolution and reproduction, obviously it is not a beneficial behaviour, however with modern technologies, i wouldn't call it negative by any means.

of course; it is a behavioural variation that is not entirely unexpected to be encountered within a population
however i used the word abnormal not to mean unexpected, but to simply mean a deviation from the norm.
i can't stress enough that this deviation is not a negative thing, however the fact remains whichever way you look at it that the human "norm" is to be heterosexual

i agree - that is what i am currently discussing with another poster
i think there is a great influence from both sides
however that is not to say that somebody must be or not be born as a homosexual
maybe they have a greater biological disposition to be so, but it is of course not a definitive, concrete, layed-out behaviour in their path of life

It's not really a disease. It's more of a mental disorder that arguably causes no harm. It's not something that should be viewed objectively as in need of treatment or correction.

Saying this: should a gay person, of their own autonomy, be entitled to seek corrective treatment without scorn from the LGBT community/sympathisers?

I think part of the problem is that only old fashioned psychiatric treatments are utilised (electroshock etc)

There's this overarching protective bubble surrounding homosexuality that almost assumes that all gay people will be 'proud' (a rather irrelevant consideration) about who they are.

It has the evolutionary advantage to allow the community to better care for the children.

I don't disagree that heterosexuality is the "norm", and I'm no statistical or medical expert, but I have seen people who are knowledgeable about such things say that under the academic/technical definition of "abnormal", homosexuality does not fall into that category.

In the sense that homosexuality is not an unexpected variation, while atypical is is not uncommon, I personally don't think it can be construed as an "abnormality", particularly given the connotations of the word that it is both unexpected/uncommon but also undesirable. There are better words to describe the frequency and nature of non-heterosexuality (particularly given it appears we exist on a spectrum of sexuality, with many people predominantly but not entirely heterosexual)

I would agree that there are probably different factors that contribute, I wouldn't be surprised if you have "biological" homosexuals and homosexuals who, through social environmental factors, have become that way. I wouldn't be surprised if there are genetic components that increase the likelihood that certain environmental or social factors will cause someone to be homosexual.

I think part of the problem is that only old fashioned psychiatric treatments are utilised (electroshock etc). There's this overarching protective bubble surrounding homosexuality that almost assumes that all gay people will be 'proud' (a rather irrelevant consideration) about who they are. It is conceivable in our newfangled liquid society that a person may seek to alter their sexuality as easily as one may alter ones gender or pronoun, and as a result of this bubble no effective or safe 'treatment' will be available.

I'm not sure any of this is likely or really that interesting. It just came to my head.