In light of the nature of discussions in the "Is homosexuality a mental illness" thread, I've conjectured that since the root of argument lies in the qualification of some (or combination of multiple) conditions as a mental illness, at least we can have a thread devoted to this fundamental topic without having to necessarily deal with homosexuality.

What makes a condition mental illness? Examples? Counter examples?

the term that refers collectively to all mental disorders. Mental disorders are health conditions that are characterized by alterations in thinking, mood or behavior (or some combination thereof) associated with distress and/or impaired functioning.

An interesting question, I think. Especially now that we seem to be calling everything a mental illness, or at least trying to treat it with drugs. "Social Anxiety Disorder" (i.e. shyness) comes to mind.

I'd say a mental illness is a mental condition that makes you different from the vast majority of people and renders you unable to function, without treatment, in society.

Examples: Schizophrenia, Major Depression or Unipolar Depression, Manic-Depression or Bipolar Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder. Haven't yet run across Homosexuality as a "disorder".

I would have to agree with LionelHutz and AbbeyRoad, only I would add that we simply dont know what homosexuality is.
If its part of the human condition or not.

An interesting question, I think. Especially now that we seem to be calling everything a mental illness, or at least trying to treat it with drugs. "Social Anxiety Disorder" (i.e. shyness) comes to mind.
Social anxiety disorder is far more than simple feelings of "shyness."
I'd say a mental illness is a mental condition that makes you different from the vast majority of people and renders you unable to function, without treatment, in society.
Social anxiety disorder falls under this definition.
Oh and Dio, Lionel's definition is a good one.

I would have to agree with LionelHutz and AbbeyRoad, only I would add that we simply dont know what homosexuality is.
We know what it is: a sexual orientation that causes romantic and sexual attraction to those of the opposite sex due to hormonal and other chemical workings in the body and more specifically, the brain.

We are not sure what causes this, but we know what it is, and it is not detrimental to individuals, therefore certainly not an illness.
If its part of the human condition or not.
It is part of a living experience. Animals other than humans participate in this, and the behavior in humans has been recorded through time. It also effects a large portion of the population (large does not mean a majority), showing us it is not uncommon and is just part of how some humans are born and live.

Personally, I think a GAY PILL is the answer. If you're gay and don't wanna be... take a pill. If you're straight and don't wanna be... take a pill. Then maybe everybody would be happy and finally sexually right where they wanna be!

;)
SMW

Personally, I think a GAY PILL is the answer. If you're gay and don't wanna be... take a pill. If you're straight and don't wanna be... take a pill. Then maybe everybody would be happy and finally sexually right where they wanna be!

;)
SMW
That reminds me of an interesting question that came up in a conversation long ago (not on AFN). With gay marriage seemingly about to be legalized soon (say, the next 10 or so years), there comes a more prominent section of gays adopting children.

If you were a gay parent, would you give your child this mythical pill to keep them from living the life you lived?
As a society, is this right?

Sorry to steer the thread this way Dio.

Being gay can't possibly be easy. From the moment you 'come out' you have to spend the rest of your life defending, or at least explaining, your lifestyle. Hetero's don't have to contend with that burden. That's one of the reasons I've never considered homosexuality to be a choice. Who in their right mind would choose to swim upstream? It's gotta be tough.

Having said that, I'd be surprised if a gay couple would want their adopted children to grow up to be gay. But I'd also be surprised if they felt it necessary to 'steer' the child in one direction above the other.

So, no, I don't think gay parents would give a sexual orientation pill (if one existed) to their children. I think they'd say (in a real high voice) (OK, kill me for that one), "We prefer to let the little dear grow up to make their own choice."

:)
SMW

Personally, I think a GAY PILL is the answer. If you're gay and don't wanna be... take a pill. If you're straight and don't wanna be... take a pill. Then maybe everybody would be happy and finally sexually right where they wanna be!


I see that as proof that homosexuality is not an illness or condition. If it were then the pharma industry would have started selling a pill for it by now.

We know what it is: a sexual orientation that causes romantic and sexual attraction to those of the opposite sex due to hormonal and other chemical workings in the body and more specifically, the brain.

We are not sure what causes this, but we know what it is, and it is not detrimental to individuals, therefore certainly not an illness.

I stand corrected.

We might know what it is. That doesnt mean we know its working correctly.


It is part of a living experience. Animals other than humans participate in this, and the behavior in humans has been recorded through time. It also effects a large portion of the population (large does not mean a majority), showing us it is not uncommon and is just part of how some humans are born and live.

That doesnt mean we know it is correct, just that it is not uncommon.

I stand corrected.
We might know what it is. That doesnt mean we know its working correctly.
Are you saying that on top of Lionel's way of qualifying mental illness (uncommon, poses problem for affected person or other people), a condition can also be deemed an mental illness if it is incorrect? If so, who is qualified to make this judgement (let's hypothetically exclude the medical community) and based on what guide line?

Also, can you give an example other than homosexuality that you think is a mental illness simply by virtue of it being "incorrect"?

Having said that, I'd be surprised if a gay couple would want their adopted children to grow up to be gay. But I'd also be surprised if they felt it necessary to 'steer' the child in one direction above the other.

Agreed.

That doesnt mean we know it is correct, just that it is not uncommon.
Correct in what sense? By what standard? It harms no one; what would make it "incorrect"?

Are you saying that on top of Lionel's way of qualifying mental illness (uncommon, poses problem for affected person or other people), a condition can also be deemed an mental illness if it is incorrect? If so, who is qualified to make this judgement (let's hypothetically exclude the medical community) and based on what guide line?

Also, can you give an example other than homosexuality that you think is a mental illness simply by virtue of it being "incorrect"?


Borg can read this as well.

To the standard heterosexual, well lets face it, they'd rather eat maggets then perform homosexual acts.
I made that statement to express the extreme thinking behind the expressed feelings of quite a few hetrerosexuals.
Its just not icky, its unthinkable.
Then again we can go to almost the same extreme and explain how homosexuality is just fine.

Thats where the confusion comes in and what I meant by "correct" is we dont know if its a mental illness, a birth defect, an evil monkey, Elvis, two headed cat, part of evolution.
I can go on but I cant think of any puns.

Anyway, the subject is what is a mental illness and would homosexuality fall in that catagory?

I dont see a way we can answer that question with our current knowledge base.

I don't think homosexuality is a mental illness. I do think it is biologically dysfunctional though but only to a certain extent.

The major purpose of sex is procreation and homosexual sex does not lead to a baby. In that respect it is dysfunctional.

Another purpose of sex, however, is social interaction and for that purpose homosexuality is not dysfunctional.

Coitus smooths eases tension andsmooths out societal interactions and homosexual sex can do this as well as heterosexual sex. Just look at Bonobos. They use sex, both heterosexual and homosexual to deflect social conflict.

I think that sometimes mental illness is just a quick way to classify people that have beliefs that are contrary to the observers way of thinking.

I think that sometimes mental illness is just a quick way to classify people that have beliefs that are contrary to the observers way of thinking.

It is not you crazy bastard. ;-)

Borg can read this as well.

Yes, I'm sure he can. :)


To the standard heterosexual, well lets face it, they'd rather eat maggets then perform homosexual acts.
I made that statement to express the extreme thinking behind the expressed feelings of quite a few hetrerosexuals.
Its just not icky, its unthinkable.
Then again we can go to almost the same extreme and explain how homosexuality is just fine.

I feel the same way about eating lima beans.


Thats where the confusion comes in and what I meant by "correct" is we dont know if its a mental illness, a birth defect, an evil monkey, Elvis, two headed cat, part of evolution.
I can go on but I cant think of any puns.

Wow.


Anyway, the subject is what is a mental illness and would homosexuality fall in that catagory?

I dont see a way we can answer that question with our current knowledge base.

Why? What knowledge do you think we're missing? We don't know exactly what causes schizophrenia, but I think we can be pretty certain it's a mental illness, and that's apparent even just using Lionel's definition.

The question should be "Does homosexuality have any of the characteristics common to mental illness?" The answer would seem to be no.

Does homosexuality have any of the characteristics common to birth defects? Is it a genetic disorder? If so, and if there were medication available or an endoscopic fetal surgical procedure that could repair it, should potential parents take advantage of it?

I think a mental illness is something which can not be controlled simply by altering one's thinking. If it can be controlled by altering one's thinking then I would term it a "condition". A mental illness limits one's enjoyment of life. It makes everything "less" and yet at the same time "harder".

I think it is chemically induced and needs chemicals to adjust it. I would term anything which makes one feel that they can not fuction in the world on a daily basis in an ongoing way without some kind of intervention to be mental illness.

Why? What knowledge do you think we're missing? We don't know exactly what causes schizophrenia, but I think we can be pretty certain it's a mental illness, and that's apparent even just using Lionel's definition.

The question should be "Does homosexuality have any of the characteristics common to mental illness?" The answer would seem to be no.

I couldnt say what we're missing because we're missing it. I'm sure if we ever find it I can point it out to you.
I do know we dont have it and we are for the most part only capable of partly helping the problem and not really fixing it.
So even though we know what something is, we are still not completely prepared to fully treat the problem.
Whatever it is we're missing to fix the problem is what we need to understand things like homosexuality.

If we generalise mental illness and say its an act that is unthinkable, like swimming naked in a wishing well and requesting a napkin to attach to your penis for a sail, that reuqest being made to the police officer trying to get the person out of the wishing well "unthinkable". Then homosexuality would most certainly qualify. That person not being under the influence of any substence, BTW.
Being as it is, has I have said before, an unthinkable act to quite a few heterosexuals.

Is this going to get into the, whats unthinkable debate? Because I'm pretty sure I made it pretty obvious in what I mean.


I feel the same way about eating lima beans.


You must really hate Lima beans.

Also, can you give an example other than homosexuality that you think is a mental illness simply by virtue of it being "incorrect"?
I can think of five off hand that are generally regarded as such. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Disorder, Psychopathy, and Sociopathy.

If we generalise mental illness and say its an act that is unthinkable, like swimming naked in a wishing well and requesting a napkin to attach to your penis for a sail, that reuqest being made to the police officer trying to get the person out of the wishing well "unthinkable". Then homosexuality would most certainly qualify. That person not being under the influence of any substence, BTW.
Being as it is, has I have said before, an unthinkable act to quite a few heterosexuals.

Is this going to get into the, whats unthinkable debate? Because I'm pretty sure I made it pretty obvious in what I mean.

Your wishing well example is an act caused by a mental illness. Mental illnesses are not acts, they are the causes of acts.

To use a more apt example, we can use your idea of "unthinkable" in a slightly less confusing way. Some people like to bungee jump. Most people probably would never do it. Of the people who would never do it, there are those who say "it's okay for them, but I don't want to" and those who say "Damn, those people must be crazy!"

Would you say that the desire to go bungee jumping is evidence of a mental illness? You might even say that it's unnatural, since it goes against the instinct to stay out of potentially dangerous situations.

I think the analogy I'm making here is pretty transparent...

I would say homosexuality is NOT how it's "meant to be".. but it happens, and people have no reason to feel inferior.

Hey, I play lots of sports, basketball the most... and i'm only 5'9"... while the guys i play with are normally 6'2"-6'4"... i am NATURALLY "short" compared to these other players. I'm different, but I still play, I still have fun, and I'm still successful.

I mean, I have panic attacks some times, and i suffer daily from panicky symptoms. I am on medication to curb these, but its an unfortunate truth. I deal with them. It's not how everyone else is, but I still have good days and I'm still glad to be alive!

Now the big difference is that these panic attacks HAVE bad symptoms, being a homosexual doesn't have any. You are just "wired" differently. Any bad symptoms are attributed to societal influences and people lashing out against what they don't understand.

Is homosexuality a mental illness? No.. it's not normal, but neither are 7'3" people... and they do all right. Fat people aren't normal, and some are NATURALLY fat, but they survive. Plus, they face far more pressure from society than homosexuals do.. i'm talking present day.

Well, Decka, I must congratulate you on such a logical and tolerant post. :)

Well, Decka, I must congratulate you on such a logical and tolerant post. :)
Seconded.

The claim "naturally fat" sounds like a pseudo-medical cop out for the obese to keep shoveling hamburgers down their throat and not feel bad.

Plus, they face far more pressure from society than homosexuals do.. i'm talking present day.
Far more? By what measure?

I don't see 30+% of the populace being discriminated against by the words of a holy book despite that gluttony is listed as a "deadly sin." The less than 10% part of the population that gets spat on for sexual orientation (something that cannot be changed unlike weight) receives this treatment for majorly religious reasons.

If "fat people" are being discriminated against for being unhealthy, while "gays" are being discriminated against for being just another person, we've problems.

The claim "naturally fat" sounds like a pseudo-medical cop out for the obese to keep shoveling hamburgers down their throat and not feel bad.

I think that is incorrect. Obesity runs in families and is generally genetic. The "will power" that those who don't have these genes think fat people lack is just the thin person's arrogant unwillingness to understand that people are different.

We have instincts to keep us wanting food, and a set point where the body stops playing tricks on us to get us to eat and tells us to stop. Exercise has been shown to be able to lower that set point, but food restriction has the opposite effect (since the body "thinks" there has been a famine, it pushes for more weight as insurance against the next one). Therefore diets put people on a yo-yo, each time around (lasting a couple years) the person is even heavier.

This is of course no argument for an unhealthy diet, but thin people eat just as badly as do fat ones. It is just that they stop eating sooner because their instinct has a lower set point.

An overweight person would be better off losing weight, but diets are unhealthy and counterproductive. The only true solution is exercise (combined with lots of roughage and water in the diet).

I think that is incorrect. Obesity runs in families and is generally genetic.
Weight does not appear out of nowhere, and so obesity is not an issue left to be regarded as something that genetics cursed many with. One does not grow to 300 pounds on a proper diet.

Do some people have the genetic inclination to eat more? Eat different things? Have slower metabolisms? Absolutely. A difference in digestive function and other factors does not necessarily make being "fat" genetic, it makes the causes of becoming "fat" genetic. If one exercises and eats properly, regardless of genes, they will maintain a healthy body weight.

Weight does not appear out of nowhere, and so obesity is not an issue left to be regarded as something that genetics cursed many with. One does not grow to 300 pounds on a proper diet.--Evakian

Morbid obesity as you describe it is a disease state. It is not what I was talking about.

You are right that one must overeat to become fat, but one will do so on a "good" diet with balanced protein and carbohydrates and little actual fat, if one is sedentary and has the genes for it.

We are not aware of the power of our instincts, and the instinct to eat is one of the most powerful. Try fasting for a week. From time to time you experience hunger, but it passes. What doesn't pass is an increasing psychological preoccupation with food. Within a few days you are dreaming of massive banquets, and you become depressed and feel deprived. Every bite of food you do eat, unless it is celery, is unbelievably delicious.

This happens to people whose weight is under the body's mostly inherited set point. They come to see food in a very different light, as something that is a source of happiness (serotonin), and its absence as a sign of not being loved and so on. It is more subtle than I paint here, so it isn't noticed, except that the pounds return, and then a few more.

The obese are less physically comfortable, find exercise more difficult, have a poor self-image, and suffer discrimination. Also they get heart disease, strokes, diabetes and even cancer at significantly higher rates. They have diminished life expectancy. For these reasons doctors properly do push weight loss.

It is unfortunate that doctors rarely refer people to a weight loss specialist (this and the difficulty getting short-sighted insurers to pay for it). Ordinary doctors are just simply not taught about these matters and many of them share the same old clichés about the obese, although I think matters have improved recently.

Finally, I see no reason why people should make matters worse by thinking and acting as though it is laziness and lack of will power. There but the grace of God go they.

Your wishing well example is an act caused by a mental illness. Mental illnesses are not acts, they are the causes of acts.

Whats the point of saying this?




Would you say that the desire to go bungee jumping is evidence of a mental illness?

No, but I would think someone pretending to be a sailboat in a wishing well is.
Thats why I said it and said it exactly the way I did. Not to point out that acting that way makes you insane, but to point out the types of things insane people would do.

By the way, being in a wishing well and pretending to be a sail boat doesnt hurt you or anyone else and its still considered to be an act of insanity.




I think the analogy I'm making here is pretty transparent...
Yes it is, still doesnt help, but it is transparent.

The claim "naturally fat" sounds like a pseudo-medical cop out for the obese to keep shoveling hamburgers down their throat and not feel bad.

I think that is incorrect. Obesity runs in families and is generally genetic. The "will power" that those who don't have these genes think fat people lack is just the thin person's arrogant unwillingness to understand that people are different.

This is of course no argument for an unhealthy diet, but thin people eat just as badly as do fat ones. It is just that they stop eating sooner because their instinct has a lower set point.

An overweight person would be better off losing weight, but diets are unhealthy and counterproductive. The only true solution is exercise (combined with lots of roughage and water in the diet).
I have also read that obesity is mostly genetic. As counterintuitive as it sounds, there really should be more focus on developing drugs to combat obesity than telling naturally fat people to go on diets and exercise. I've read studies that show most non-obese people don't gain much weight even when eating unhealthily and sit around all day, whereas the opposite happens to people with fat genes. Anyway, that's a different topic.

Whats the point of saying this?





No, but I would think someone pretending to be a sailboat in a wishing well is.
Thats why I said it and said it exactly the way I did. Not to point out that acting that way makes you insane, but to point out the types of things insane people would do.

By the way, being in a wishing well and pretending to be a sail boat doesnt hurt you or anyone else and its still considered to be an act of insanity.




Yes it is, still doesnt help, but it is transparent.
You completely disregarded almost everything I said. Thanks.

my view on genetics and obesity is as follows...

It is a build up of a mindset... Obese people(400+ lbs) don't eat healthy, they don't exercise regularly, and they binge eat. Now what causes this? The way i see it, its the product of their realization that they have to work many times harder to look the way society tells you to look, and they throw their arms up and say "eh, what the fuck, why should i even try?"

If Girl A, who is skinny, hangs around with girl B, who is thick... and they go out to eat alot, a process happens. Girl A eats like a cow, but yet never gains a pound. Girl B eats like a cow, and gains 10 lbs in 2 weeks. Girl B wonders "why am I gaining weight when my friend doesn't? we eat the same stuff?" So Girl A can continue to know that WHATEVER SHE EATS, she's going to be skinny... and thus she can depend on that, and know that ANY HEALTHY STEP she takes will produce a result.

Meanwhile.. Girl B can take MANY healthy steps, and not see ANY results. She has to work ALOT harder.. and the stress and expectations can cause Girl B to just say "fuck it" to the whole thing, and just be how she was meant to be.

Now, The "Girl B" i was talking about is NOT a "400 lb" bertha... but she's "fat" and really can't do anything about it.

Good point Decka.

I stopped in Mc D's in Chipley, Fl a while back and was impressed with the number of fat parents with fat kids stuffing their faces.
Eating habits seem to be passed from generation to generation.

". . . fat parents with fat kids stuffing their faces."

Oh please, that is way too judgmental. If it weren't for your genes you would be there too. They are responding to pleasure signals (basically feelings of contentment and happiness) that the brain provides when they do what the instinct wants them to do.

I think the problem I am having persuading people of this is that we worship our own sense of self responsibility ("free will") too much and do not consciously notice instincts playing with our emotions.

There is a similar phenomenon to be noted in religion. We all have an inherited tendency to absorb the norms of our culture while we are quite young. We also, since it promotes group cohesion, have a rough time of it abandoning those notions.

For example, "The Bible is God's Word." Taken figuratively, this is almost meaningless, but children do not take things figuratively.

So we grow up with this belief as part of the furniture, not even consciously aware that it is only a firm opinion--it is seen to us as just simply true and without question.

Of course this runs into trouble during education for most of us, and we tend to begin to lose our faith.

The result is our brain rebelling, and filling us with unease an fear and guilt. Many get past this and change the old belief; others do so but are left with a residue of anger; others go through this process and fall back to the old "verity."

This last group is particularly interesting. Listen to their testimony when they "found Jesus." They were fill to the rim with joy and happiness and relief. There go those instincts producing serotonin like mad.

Interesting.

In one single thread (and only three pages long at that), we've discovered that homosexuality, obesity, riding in sailboats, short guys playing basketball, and a belief in Jesus Christ are all examples of mental illness.

Next you're going to tell me that sharing your flat with a live, shaved goat should somehow be viewed as an 'odd' behavior!!

Please!! Are these enlightened times, or are we living in the Dark Ages?

". . . fat parents with fat kids stuffing their faces."

Oh please, that is way too judgmental. If it weren't for your genes you would be there too. They are responding to pleasure signals (basically feelings of contentment and happiness) that the brain provides when they do what the instinct wants them to do.

Right, a response that without some sort of guidance or restraint leads to a dependency. For the parent to attempt to guide the child to proper eating habits they would first have to admit that they themselves have a problem.

Illegal drugs may give the same feelings of pleasure and contentment, yet many choose not to use them, realizing the harm they can potentially do to the body.

Attitude has made us the fattest nation on earth, according to statistics that have been published. Most of these genes came from other nations originally.

Interesting.

In one single thread (and only three pages long at that), we've discovered that homosexuality, obesity, riding in sailboats, short guys playing basketball, and a belief in Jesus Christ are all examples of mental illness.

Next you're going to tell me that sharing your flat with a live, shaved goat should somehow be viewed as an 'odd' behavior!!

Please!! Are these enlightened times, or are we living in the Dark Ages?

I would think anyone reading the messages carefully and with an open mind would conclude that none of these are mental illnesses.

Obesity also has to do with economics..
For example, note how many low-income or poor people are overweight.

The answer is because good food, like fresh produce or good lean meat, costs a lot more than junk food.

Economics only enters the situation when there is real poverty. Even the poor in America have no problem getting fat. Availability of food is a limiting factor, and believed to be the source of the natural selection that lead to "fat" genes in the population. They are part of natural variation.

You completely disregarded almost everything I said. Thanks.

No I didn't,well.. I did a little but it wasnt all that bad. Homosexuality is like bungee jumping?

Bungee jumping is a choice, you can choose to bungee jump. People have decided to bungee jump and shortly after making the decision back out of it.

You cant choose to have a mental illness or be a homosexual. So far I have yet to see a homosexual say, I am no longer a homosexual because it really freaked me out.
I have however seen several homosexuals say, I tried to not be a homosexual and I just cant do it. I have also seen mentally ill people say the same thing, only it was regarding wishing wells and sailboats.

No I didn't,well.. I did a little but it wasnt all that bad. Homosexuality is like bungee jumping?

Bungee jumping is a choice, you can choose to bungee jump. People have decided to bungee jump and shortly after making the decision back out of it.

You cant choose to have a mental illness or be a homosexual. So far I have yet to see a homosexual say, I am no longer a homosexual because it really freaked me out.
I have however seen several homosexuals say, I tried to not be a homosexual and I just cant do it. I have also seen mentally ill people say the same thing, only it was regarding wishing wells and sailboats.
Since homosexals don't choose to be homosexals (any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexuals or, I am trying to show, that obese people choose to be obese), your comparison to bunjee jumping makes no sense.

By the way, jumping off a high bridge like that is a hoot!

Since homosexals don't choose to be homosexals (any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexuals or, I am trying to show, that obese people choose to be obese), your comparison to bunjee jumping makes no sense.

By the way, jumping off a high bridge like that is a hoot!

Bungee jumping was brought up to me in another post that was a reply to something I said.

Bungee jumping was compared to homosexuality. Some people would think its ok but not for them, some would think you'd have to be completely insane to do it and some would think its the best thing ever.
Would you say the people who really like it are insane?

Are you insane? I think the poles are still out on that one :lolhit:
I know I am.

By using the problems obese people face in comparison to the problems homosexuals face, its as if youre saying something isn't working correctly "more or less" in both cases.
What would you suggest that is?
Should it be something to cause concern or something to over look?
I think that is the question we are really asking here.

On obesity and genetics:

I say "Hogwash!" (forgive the terminology) to asserting that genetics is a significant factor in most people's weight in U.S. society.

Have you ever been to Europe? It's amazing how there is a distinct lack of "genetically" obese people there. Granted, there is surely a few exceptional cases where someone has an affliction or inherited trait that causes them to be fat, but I would feel very comfortable saying that at least 95% of the obese population in the U.S. suffers from self-inflicted obesity.

Since homosexals don't choose to be homosexals (any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexuals or, I am trying to show, that obese people choose to be obese),

You don't think people ever make a choice to try homosexuality? I've known several people who have. That's not to say all homosexuals choose to be that way, but there are certainly people who "experiment" with homosexuality.

You don't think people ever make a choice to try homosexuality? I've known several people who have. That's not to say all homosexuals choose to be that way, but there are certainly people who "experiment" with homosexuality.

There is no valid scholar alive who thinks it is a matter of choice.

Often women will "choose" to become a Lesbian after trying heterosexual sex and finding it empty for them. This is because they were Lesbians all along and only not willing to admit it.

There are genuine "bisexuals" out there who can choose to go one way or the other, although almost always they end up being the other surreptitiously (as with a certain New Jersey politician). This is a small minority.

I look at myself and remember a few times when I was encouraged by gays (this is when I was young in college) to "try it out." I could simply see no point. I wasn't repelled, exactly--I was just utterly uninterested.

Putting my view in the place of a male homosexual, I would imagine they have a similar reaction to women.

Would you say the people who really like it are insane?

By using the problems obese people face in comparison to the problems homosexuals face, its as if you're saying something isn't working correctly "more or less" in both cases.
What would you suggest that is?


The pleasure of an adrenalin rush is something well known to be genetic. Some people just love it, some couldn't care less. This is having fun, and responding to your thrill-seeking instincts, not insanity.

There is a significant difference between obesity and homosexuality--the first presents medical consequences, homosexuality does not (there are of course STDs, but these are an indirect consequence of foolish behavior, not of homosexuality per se).

My putting them together is to emphasize that in both cases the individual has no choice. Therefore we need to accept and not judge or discriminate. They are variations in the human species, and each has its reason for being here.

A person prone to obesity inherits the food craving and the physical "laziness" so often condemned. Europeans are just not as far advanced on the automobile culture as Americans, so the food is not as rich and there is more exercise, but Europeans (at least the Germans and Dutch and Danes I did most of my business with) do get fat.

The classic example are Hopi Indians, extremely prone to obesity once they live in American culture--a veritable racial trait.

There are environmental factors involved in the playing out of genes. Vietnamese were all short, and anyone over about 20 is short, but now the government talks about adequate calcium as much as it talks about the benefits of a one-party state in its propaganda, and the children are turning out much taller.

That however does not mean height is not an inherited trait. It is just that environment influences its expression. Given a world where physical effort is entirely voluntary and essentially unlimited food is available, the genes that result in obesity will do their thing.

There is no valid scholar alive who thinks it is a matter of choice.

Although I seriously doubt this, I refuse as a matter of principal to research it. Maybe I'll just declare myself a scholar!



Often women will "choose" to become a Lesbian after trying heterosexual sex and finding it empty for them. This is because they were Lesbians all along and only not willing to admit it.

There are genuine "bisexuals" out there who can choose to go one way or the other, although almost always they end up being the other surreptitiously (as with a certain New Jersey politician). This is a small minority.

I look at myself and remember a few times when I was encouraged by gays (this is when I was young in college) to "try it out." I could simply see no point. I wasn't repelled, exactly--I was just utterly uninterested.

Putting my view in the place of a male homosexual, I would imagine they have a similar reaction to women.

One reason I think sexuality can be a choice is because, if you blindfolded anyone, most people would not be able to tell whether a man or woman was performing a sexual act on him or her. That indicates to me that sexuality is based on perception.

Therefore, if one can change their perception of a gender, then they should be able to change their sexuality. I think "open-minded" people are able to do this. Granted, I don't think it's an overnight change but a gradual exposure to different sexuality.

Also, identical twin research shows that sexuality is largely driven by environmental influences. If one can change their environment, then they should be able to influence their sexuality...i.e. exposing oneself to homosexual influences tends to cause one to become homosexual.

For example, I suspect homosexual couples that roleplay (i.e. one acts like a man and the other like a woman) are people who biologically tend to be heterosexual, but have adapted to homosexuality. You can argue about whether those people make choices to be who they are, but that leads to an argument about whether ANYONE EVER makes a choice.

Disclaimer: I'm not denying biology plays a role.

Although I seriously doubt this, I refuse as a matter of principal to research it.
What kind of principal is this? I mean to ask, if you are to substitute "a matter of principal" in the sentence with what this principal encompasses, what would this substitution phrase be?

"Often women will "choose" to become a Lesbian after trying heterosexual sex and finding it empty for them. This is because they were Lesbians all along and only not willing to admit it."

LOL, that's a pretty strong statement, there, T, but I'm afraid it's not true. If it were as simple as 'choosing' to be a lesbian, there wouldn't be enough straight women around to keep the lipstick manufacturers in business... much less iron your shirts.

:)
SMW

If we generalise mental illness and say its an act that is unthinkable, like swimming naked in a wishing well and requesting a napkin to attach to your penis for a sail, that reuqest being made to the police officer trying to get the person out of the wishing well "unthinkable". Then homosexuality would most certainly qualify.
It seems as if you are saying that even if a condition is

1) extremely rare
2) not undesirable or troubling for the person with the condition
3) the person baring this condition does not harm others as a result

that it could still be qualified as a mental illness as long as it is "unthinkable" to certain people.

Can you verify this?

Another question is about the "working correctly" phrase that you have used multiple times and I asked you about earlier. If something can be called a mental illness purely by virtue of it being incorrect, by whom and by what standard should this judgement be carried out? I've also asked if you can provide an example of a condition commonly (better yet, formally and medically) viewed as a mental illness in this way. Can you provide some?

What kind of principal is this? I mean to ask, if you are to substitute "a matter of principal" in the sentence with what this principal encompasses, what would this substitution phrase be?

The principle (not principal!...always a confusing distinction for me) is that it's not worth investing my time to read through a bunch of "scholar"ly articles to dispute a claim that is tangent to the debate.

If end up "trying homosexuality out" that would mean there is a desire to do it. People would not do it if not interested.

This debate seems to rest on the assumption that sexuality is a polarity of hetero- and homo- varieties. That assumption is false. Even back in the days of Alfred Kinsey there were theories of multiple levels of sexuality, a "scale." Kinsey made one, others have made their versions, and it still finds practical usage. 0 being heterosexual and 6 being exclusively heterosexual, 3 being equally attracted to both sides, and the numbers in between toy with the dominance of attraction to either side even though attraction to both exists.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it is a sexual orientation. Just because you kiss someone of the same sex, while this may be a homosexual act, it doesn't make one homosexual. You would require a romantic and/or sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

For a woman to start a relationship with a woman despite being engaged in a relationship with a man, would mean she has sexual leanings to females as well, or is socially pressured to take on the onus of the relationship with the man. The choice of a person to live a homosexual lifestyle in the midst of being bisexual to some degree is in fact a choice, but the orientation, the "being gay," is not.

One does not choose who you are attracted to physically or romantically, it just happens.

It seems as if you are saying that even if a condition is

1) extremely rare
2) not undesirable or troubling for the person with the condition
3) the person baring this condition does not harm others as a result

that it could still be qualified as a mental illness as long as it is "unthinkable" to certain people.

Can you verify this?

There are forms of mental illness that are harmless to both the person who has it and the people they may come in contact with. Such a mental illness doesnt really effect the person who has it until it begins to effect the persons social environment.
Its not hurting anyone, it just doesnt fit well with the normal social pattern of our current society.

For example, bipolar disorder. It has many levels, quite a few of them are harmless. Admittedly there are quite a few extreme cases. That doesnt mean there are still quite a few people with bipolar disorder who dont hurt themselves or anyone around them.
They might do or say things that no sane person would, but what they are doing and saying isnt hurting anyone.
That doesnt change the fact that they have a mental illness. So by using this as an example we can say homosexuality is a mental illness
"If we generalise"
Both cases have a few commonalities. Not in symptoms but in the manner in which they'er seen as a condition might be seen.

In both cases most of the people who have it claim they dont want it.
In both cases the people who have it claim they cant help but have it.
Quite a few bipolar people dont hurt themselves or anyone around them. Quite a few homosexuals dont hurt themselves or anyone around them.
Quite a few people with bipolar disorder only suffer in life because of other people.
Quite a few homosexuals only suffer in life because of other people.



Another question is about the "working correctly" phrase that you have used multiple times and I asked you about earlier. If something can be called a mental illness purely by virtue of it being incorrect, by whom and by what standard should this judgement be carried out? I've also asked if you can provide an example of a condition commonly (better yet, formally and medically) viewed as a mental illness in this way. Can you provide some?

I didnt want to narrow it down to mental illness. "working correctly" can mean a number of things. My purpose in using the term was to show that "it" can be a number of things. I am not saying "it" is a mental condition by saying "it" is incorrect. I am saying if something is wrong with "homoseuality" then we dont know presently what it is and we can only call "it" something like "incorrect"
The word "incorrect" when I used it only referrs to "homosexuality" and not a mental illness and even then I am not saying "it" is "incorrect".
I am saying we "don't" know what "it" is.

"The" word... "is" mental... illness.
My God Spock!
"What", is it?

I believe it is incorrect captain.

You don't think people ever make a choice to try homosexuality? I've known several people who have. That's not to say all homosexuals choose to be that way, but there are certainly people who "experiment" with homosexuality.

No doubt there are people who experiment with homosexuality, indeed I've assisted in an experiment or two, but I think it has little bearing on the issue of whether "being" gay is a choice or not.

If it was a choice, you'd have to assume there was a moment of decision. I mean to say that at some point the person had to have some inner debate and reach a solid conclusion for themselves on how they would proceed for the remainder of their lives. It would seem to me that this would be a rather momentous and memorable event in a person's life, yet I've never heard even one gay person recount having this epiphany. Of course you have to wonder why someone would choose to engage in a lifesyle that many others find detestable, and indeed until very recently society went to great lengths to identify and treat cruelly those suspected of this behavior.

When I was in my early 20's I had a friend ask me "Why are you gay?" I could only respond "Why are you straight?" Do any of you raging heterosexuals remember making a "choice" to be straight, or is it simply the way you've always been? I think Thislin was correct when he pointed out that most gay men don't feel that having sex with a woman is detestable, and for myself I can say that I even find it enjoyable, it's just not where the drive leads me. Our sexual response isn't a matter of choice, it isn't even a matter of concious thought. We respond to chemicals that are released by our brains, and we have little control over that. Functionally, gay people are no different than straight people, we just release our chemicals in response to different stimulus.

When I was in my early 20's I had a friend ask me "Why are you gay?" I could only respond "Why are you straight?" Do any of you raging heterosexuals remember making a "choice" to be straight, or is it simply the way you've always been?


Very good point, sir.


In one single thread (and only three pages long at that), we've discovered that homosexuality, obesity, riding in sailboats, short guys playing basketball, and a belief in Jesus Christ are all examples of mental illness.

Next you're going to tell me that sharing your flat with a live, shaved goat should somehow be viewed as an 'odd' behavior!!

Please!! Are these enlightened times, or are we living in the Dark Ages?
I would think anyone reading the messages carefully and with an open mind would conclude that none of these are mental illnesses.

I was just being funny, sir.
A card.
Silly, goofy, whacky, nutty.

You know, crazy.

"Often women will "choose" to become a Lesbian after trying heterosexual sex and finding it empty for them. This is because they were Lesbians all along and only not willing to admit it."

LOL, that's a pretty strong statement, there, T, but I'm afraid it's not true. If it were as simple as 'choosing' to be a lesbian, there wouldn't be enough straight women around to keep the lipstick manufacturers in business... much less iron your shirts.


I should have expressed myself more precisely. The choice is to give up having sex with men (the man's lack of interest is obvious, but a woman can fake it). There is no choice when it comes to orientation.

In cultures where all women are forced to marry and have children, they all do, while gay men in the same situation are stuck.

Ben Franklin defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over expecting different reults."

I keep trying to get certain people here to be sensible and moderate and tolerant; I must be insane.

The principle (not principal!...always a confusing distinction for me) is that it's not worth investing my time to read through a bunch of "scholar"ly articles to dispute a claim that is tangent to the debate.

You just don't want to get into an argument over whether or not the quacks who argue otherwise and get lots of money from frantic fundamentalist parents to fix their gay children are scientific.

There are forms of mental illness that are harmless to both the person who has it and the people they may come in contact with.

The Buddha identified delusion, desire and revulsion as the sources of suffering in the human mind.

We think of delusion as insanity, and much of it is, but delusion (at least the Pali word translated as "delusion") is somewhat broader. It includes beliefs one is unwilling to examine reasonably and change if the belief is unreasonable or unwise or harmful or unscientific (the phrase is "rejected by the expert").

With that definition, most Christian belief is delusional, and in the end therefore a cause of suffering.

One might distinguish between those Christians who are fundamentalist and liberal Christians. The rigidity and intolerance and vainglory and persecution complex of the fundamentalist shares many characteristics with schizophrenia.

The Buddha identified delusion, desire and revulsion as the sources of suffering in the human mind.

We think of delusion as insanity, and much of it is, but delusion (at least the Pali word translated as "delusion") is somewhat broader. It includes beliefs one is unwilling to examine reasonably and change if the belief is unreasonable or unwise or harmful or unscientific (the phrase is "rejected by the expert").

With that definition, most Christian belief is delusional, and in the end therefore a cause of suffering.

One might distinguish between those Christians who are fundamentalist and liberal Christians. The rigidity and intolerance and vainglory and persecution complex of the fundamentalist shares many characteristics with schizophrenia.

Thats nothing new. Your standard Atheist will tell you that.
If youre saying we can figure out a way to give everyone on the planet a mental illness once we think about it. I'd have to agree.

Thats one of the reasons I said we cant answer this question with our current knowledge base.

Thats nothing new. Your standard Atheist will tell you that.
If youre saying we can figure out a way to give everyone on the planet a mental illness once we think about it. I'd have to agree.

Thats one of the reasons I said we cant answer this question with our current knowledge base.

I don't see where you said anything except, "I feel like being nasty." Buddhists generally are atheists, or at least agnostic. They got there long before Christianity would have tolerated such thinking.

"I feel like being nasty."

Are you coming on to me?

You just don't want to get into an argument over whether or not the quacks who argue otherwise and get lots of money from frantic fundamentalist parents to fix their gay children are scientific.

Must...not...take...the...bait!

No doubt there are people who experiment with homosexuality, indeed I've assisted in an experiment or two, but I think it has little bearing on the issue of whether "being" gay is a choice or not.

If it was a choice, you'd have to assume there was a moment of decision. I mean to say that at some point the person had to have some inner debate and reach a solid conclusion for themselves on how they would proceed for the remainder of their lives. It would seem to me that this would be a rather momentous and memorable event in a person's life, yet I've never heard even one gay person recount having this epiphany. Of course you have to wonder why someone would choose to engage in a lifesyle that many others find detestable, and indeed until very recently society went to great lengths to identify and treat cruelly those suspected of this behavior.

When I was in my early 20's I had a friend ask me "Why are you gay?" I could only respond "Why are you straight?" Do any of you raging heterosexuals remember making a "choice" to be straight, or is it simply the way you've always been? I think Thislin was correct when he pointed out that most gay men don't feel that having sex with a woman is detestable, and for myself I can say that I even find it enjoyable, it's just not where the drive leads me. Our sexual response isn't a matter of choice, it isn't even a matter of concious thought. We respond to chemicals that are released by our brains, and we have little control over that. Functionally, gay people are no different than straight people, we just release our chemicals in response to different stimulus.

Frankly, I don't think we're disagreeing that much here. When I say choice, I don't mean an overnight Incredible-Hulk-like transformation.

I think homosexuality can be an "acquired taste" for some people after experimentation. (Once again, I emphasize some not "all") But the "moment of decision" comes when you start experimenting, the same way people become beer-drinkers or drug addicts.

A similar example comes when some people say they were born with the "disease" of alcoholism. I think that's B.S. because those people had to, at some point in their lives, make a conscious decision to drink a lot....perhaps there are some genetic vulnerabilities involved, but that doesn't change the fact that they chose to be exposed to alcoholism.

Another example that comes to mind are extraverts and introverts. No one decides overnight to become an extrovert, but you can engage in behavior that makes you change into an extrovert.

Another example that comes to mind are extraverts and introverts. No one decides overnight to become an extrovert, but you can engage in behavior that makes you change into an extrovert.
I was with you until this part. Introversion and extroversion are immutable traits; how social you are is subject to your desires and behavior. In fact, this extends quite nicely to the homosexual thing: you can't change to what sex you are attracted, but you can choose with whom you have sex. There is a difference between actual homosexuality and homosexual behavior. A guy can suck dick in his life while being perfectly straight, and a guy can fuck a few bitches while being perfectly gay. Can someone have sex with someone of the same sex and "suddenly realize" they're gay? I suppose, but it would be the exception rather than the rule. I don't need to try giving blowjobs to know I'm not interested, and I didn't need to engage in vaginal intercourse to know I was straight. I knew long before I lost my virginity. And I believe I'm fairly average in my experiences on this.

Must...not...take...the...bait!

Of course not. You already have three strikes.

Frankly, I don't think we're disagreeing that much here. When I say choice, I don't mean an overnight Incredible-Hulk-like transformation.

--Homosexual behavior is seen all over the animal kingdom, as an instinctive behavior, so one presumes in many species, in spite of the seemingly unfavorable selection, it provides enough advantage in some way to remain in the population at a small level.

--That it is "chosen" seems absurd. Maybe you are somewhat bisexual and therefore perceive such a possibility, but I for one cannot conceive of "choosing" to be homosexual, and that applies to most straights. It is not that I am repelled or anything, it is just that it would not be possible. (I will admit when I was young kinda envying gays, since they found sex partners so much more easily then me, but, in spite of this, it would have been impossible for me to make such a choice).

I think homosexuality can be an "acquired taste" for some people after experimentation. (Once again, I emphasize some not "all") But the "moment of decision" comes when you start experimenting, the same way people become beer-drinkers or drug addicts.

--If this is true, it is true only for a small number of bisexuals. For the vast majority of both straights and gays, the genetic (or maybe intra-uterine) "choice" is made for us long before we are aware.

A similar example comes when some people say they were born with the "disease" of alcoholism. I think that's B.S. because those people had to, at some point in their lives, make a conscious decision to drink a lot....perhaps there are some genetic vulnerabilities involved, but that doesn't change the fact that they chose to be exposed to alcoholism.

--You are being judgmental and then inventing arguments to rationalize your superiority feelings. Learn to observe but not judge. Alcoholism is a disease. So is drug addiction. It becomes a disease when it does harm to one's health and requires extraordinary intervention to correct. That some people are prone to alcoholism and that it tends to run in families is well known. There is such a thing as an "addictive personality." Almost everyone nowadays tries pot and everyone has had alcohol, but only a few become potheads or alcoholics.

Another example that comes to mind are extroverts and introverts. No one decides overnight to become an extrovert, but you can engage in behavior that makes you change into an extrovert.

--I think you just proved how wrong you are. This is not so. One can learn to overcome fears, but our personalities hold through our lives.

--Martin

I'm not replying to your posts when you encase the entire post in the quote block, jfyi. I can't quote you without cutting and pasting, and it's not worth responding to you when that's the case.

I'm not replying to your posts when you encase the entire post in the quote block, jfyi. I can't quote you without cutting and pasting, and it's not worth responding to you when that's the case.Fair point.

I was with you until this part. Introversion and extroversion are immutable traits; how social you are is subject to your desires and behavior. In fact, this extends quite nicely to the homosexual thing: you can't change to what sex you are attracted, but you can choose with whom you have sex. There is a difference between actual homosexuality and homosexual behavior. A guy can suck dick in his life while being perfectly straight, and a guy can fuck a few bitches while being perfectly gay. Can someone have sex with someone of the same sex and "suddenly realize" they're gay? I suppose, but it would be the exception rather than the rule. I don't need to try giving blowjobs to know I'm not interested, and I didn't need to engage in vaginal intercourse to know I was straight. I knew long before I lost my virginity. And I believe I'm fairly average in my experiences on this.

You don't think you can change aspects of your personality? If intoversion/extroversion are immutable traits, why are there identical twins where one twin is an introvert, and the other is an extrovert? Same thing with gays?

I'll tell you why: because environment plays a huge role in development of your personality (sexuality included). If you can control your environment, then you can control the development of your personality characteristics.

And don't get me wrong, genetics is a substantial factor as well.

I'm not replying to your posts when you encase the entire post in the quote block, jfyi. I can't quote you without cutting and pasting, and it's not worth responding to you when that's the case.

I guess your wisdom will just have to go unheard.

You don't think you can change aspects of your personality? If intoversion/extroversion are immutable traits, why are there identical twins where one twin is an introvert, and the other is an extrovert? Same thing with gays?

I'll tell you why: because environment plays a huge role in development of your personality (sexuality included). If you can control your environment, then you can control the development of your personality characteristics.

And don't get me wrong, genetics is a substantial factor as well.
I don't deny that nurture plays a large role in the development of personality traits. However, just because nurture created them doesn't mean that they're changeable. I'm an introvert; people, as a rule, tend to tire me out. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy being with people, and I love my friends, and I love hanging out with them. But I need time to myself, by myself after that. Is that a mutable characteristic? I don't think so. How social you are is behavior, and I can certainly alter that at will. I can spend a straight week with my friends, never having a second alone. But I'd still be exhausted because of it, and I'd still feel the urge to be alone for a while after that. That urge I can't get rid of. It's part of my personality, and I'd say it's immutable. It's much the same way with sexuality. I see a naked hot woman, I become sexually excited. There's not much that can be done to change that, short of perhaps brain surgery. It's an innate response.

I don't deny that nurture plays a large role in the development of personality traits.

The nature/nurture debate.

Social workers and psychiatrists and teachers have an interest in emphasizing "nurture," since without it they have no real work to do.

The reality is that "nature" is much more important than we realize. Twin studies where the twins are reared apart have tended to demonstrate this over and over--identical twins turn out the same regardless; fraternal twins don't.

This has one positive aspect; parents are not nearly as blamable (nor creditable) for how their children turn out as people think. Of course behavior problems do run in families, but this is not as much how they are raised as the fact that they are raised by their parents.

I don't know that this implies we should not make the environment as positive and wholesome as possible, but only because it is a good thing in and of itself, not because we think it will work miracles.

Agreed.

Nurture, nature, genetics, environment, blah blah blah blah blah.
Crazy is as crazy does, that's what I say.

Here’s what years of studying human psychology has taught me:

* It’s a Monday morning armchair-quarterback sort of science; only useful for hypothesizing about what might have gone wrong, not in stating for sure what the hell went wrong. And nearly useless in helping to predict what might happen in the future. (Well, about as useful as the Channel 9 Meteorology crew.)

* I am a crazy-magnet. If there’s a woman out there with a neurosis, a phobia, a fetish, or an unhealthy compulsion, she will be abnormally attracted to me. She will want to spend a lot of time with me, and ultimately will want to ruin my life and make off with all my money, my house, and over half my possessions.

* The yardstick for insanity is a sliding scale, and changes with the caprice & whimsy of fashionable society; You are considered crazy if your behavior is viewed to be unacceptable to those around you.
In other words, if you walk around naked & talking to yourself, whistling show tunes, and leading a live shaved goat around on a leash in broad daylight, (and let’s assume you are happy & content) you will still be branded a nut-job, and popular society will have you locked up.
But if you perform those same acts on a desert island with nobody else around, then you will still be happy and content, and who is to say that you are crazy or sane?
It’s all relative.

* Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and Howard Hughes were all enormously successful people. Any by our standards anyway, were considered crazy as a loon. And they all three created their own individual standard of acceptable behavior by the privilege of wealth and the comfort of isolation from the rest of society. Almost ANYBODY who has unlimited resources (and finds themselves living comfortably-apart from the rest of society) will ultimately succumb to their own fears, phobias, passions, and obsessions.
And will also ultimately be branded ‘insane’ by the great unwashed masses.

That’s my two cents worth on the topic.
Please do not argue with me, okay?
I’m very touchy about anybody disagreeing with me, and I just might go off.

:eek: :mad: :rolleyes: :) :confused:

The nature/nurture debate.

This has one positive aspect; parents are not nearly as blamable (nor creditable) for how their children turn out as people think. Of course behavior problems do run in families, but this is not as much how they are raised as the fact that they are raised by their parents.

.
what about kids in foster homes?

what about kids in foster homes?
Your point is?

He lives in a foster home, Thislin... He wasn't trying to argue with you.

nevrmind.sorry.

He lives in a foster home, Thislin... He wasn't trying to argue with you.
And his mother dosed him with alcohol and drugs...so he's just trying to understand.

Live in a crazy environment with someone who is mental for long enough and one becomes really damn good at psychology trust me. I can spot a loon at 40 paces and they usually don't like me much as I "calls um like I sees um" and I have no trouble being straight forward on that.

Nurture, nature, genetics, environment, blah blah blah blah blah.
Crazy is as crazy does, that's what I say.
Your post is dead on!

nevrmind.sorry.

Don't apologize littlejoe, you did nothing wrong. Whenever you have a question or wish to respond to anyone, just jump in and post your thoughts.

And his mother dosed him with alcohol and drugs...so he's just trying to understand.

Live in a crazy environment with someone who is mental for long enough and one becomes really damn good at psychology trust me. I can spot a loon at 40 paces and they usually don't like me much as I "calls um like I sees um" and I have no trouble being straight forward on that.
Seriously. I think most of the people on this board have picked up a few tidbits about my parents. I suppose the only difference is that I dosed myself with alcohol and drugs and hell if I was gonna share 'em with my damn parents.

And yet I still had several relationships with guys who reminded me of my father. I definitely knew better, but I suppose I had to learn my lesson a couple times.

Don't apologize littlejoe, you did nothing wrong. Whenever you have a question or wish to respond to anyone, just jump in and post your thoughts.
ok. he said
but this is not as much how they are raised as the fact that they are raised by their parents.

i think he means kids shuld b raised by their parents. my mom was bad n i dont think i shuld b raised by her. what about kids in foster homes who rnt raised by their parents. i think he thinks they will turn out bad but i dont think so.
i think is how kids r raised n not by who.
he said bad runs n families so does he think ill end up bad like my mom?

Don't apologize littlejoe, you did nothing wrong. Whenever you have a question or wish to respond to anyone, just jump in and post your thoughts.


Looks like Thislin was spooked out of the thread, least he could do is say he didnt know and was sorry.
:hitout:

Thats what Nap would do :comphit:

ok. he said
but this is not as much how they are raised as the fact that they are raised by their parents.

i think he means kids shuld b raised by their parents. my mom was bad n i dont think i shuld b raised by her. what about kids in foster homes who rnt raised by their parents. i think he thinks they will turn out bad but i dont think so.
i think is how kids r raised n not by who.
he said bad runs n families so does he think ill end up bad like my mom?
If it's all genetic, then there's no hope for me. I've got a bipolar alcoholic pothead for a mom and a psychotic heroin junkie for a dad.

ok. he said
but this is not as much how they are raised as the fact that they are raised by their parents.

i think he means kids shuld b raised by their parents. my mom was bad n i dont think i shuld b raised by her. what about kids in foster homes who rnt raised by their parents. i think he thinks they will turn out bad but i dont think so.
i think is how kids r raised n not by who.
he said bad runs n families so does he think ill end up bad like my mom?

I can't speak for Thislin, but I think you can be as good or bad as you want to be, littlejoe. Nobody had perfect parents. It may be that your mom is less perfect than someone else's, but at least you recognize that and are striving to be a better person than she was. It's all anyone can do, and all anyone can ask of you.

If it's all genetic, then there's no hope for me. I've got a bipolar alcoholic pothead for a mom and a psychotic heroin junkie for a dad.


Bipolar disorder can be inherited. That doesnt mean its the same for everyone who has it in the family. Lots of people over come the problems their parents faced with the same illness. Personaly I'd say upbringing has nothing to do with it.

ok. he said
but this is not as much how they are raised as the fact that they are raised by their parents.

i think he means kids shuld b raised by their parents. my mom was bad n i dont think i shuld b raised by her. what about kids in foster homes who rnt raised by their parents. i think he thinks they will turn out bad but i dont think so.
i think is how kids r raised n not by who.
he said bad runs n families so does he think ill end up bad like my mom?

Lots of pretty succesfull people had bad parents. If you like I can show you a list?
Some of them are pretty famous now.
They'er all nice people who live very happy lives, despite how they were treated as a child and it didnt matter who raised them.

In light of the nature of discussions in the "Is homosexuality a mental illness" thread, I've conjectured that since the root of argument lies in the qualification of some (or combination of multiple) conditions as a mental illness, at least we can have a thread devoted to this fundamental topic without having to necessarily deal with homosexuality.

What makes a condition mental illness? Examples? Counter examples?

To pin down Mental Illness in a simple contextual definition,wood
bee like askin a Sports figger,which Sport requires more
Athleticism or skill.
Or what constitutes a Sport.
Is pitching horseshoes a Sport.
One could probably make Sport of Posting messages.
Y'know...Like round dis pop stand. Replete the Shoes & Horseshit.
And Beanie Caps.

Seriously. I think most of the people on this board have picked up a few tidbits about my parents. I suppose the only difference is that I dosed myself with alcohol and drugs and hell if I was gonna share 'em with my damn parents.

And yet I still had several relationships with guys who reminded me of my father. I definitely knew better, but I suppose I had to learn my lesson a couple times.
Yes well sometimes people are quick to judge kids and why they do things. It is all well and good to say the environment doesn't matter, it is another thing to live it.

One of the things you have going for you is that you are extremely bright and therefore prone to analyze as well as respond. I used your quote, hoping Thislin would notice he is just a kid. I don't think he realizes that.

I can't speak for Thislin, but I think you can be as good or bad as you want to be, littlejoe. Nobody had perfect parents. It may be that your mom is less perfect than someone else's, but at least you recognize that and are striving to be a better person than she was. It's all anyone can do, and all anyone can ask of you.

You've made better sense,than you knowed.
The argument over inherited genes vs. surroundings is a good
debate.As in - The Bad Seed - {1956} where little Patty McCormick
is assumed to be the Perfect little Girl.Until about halfway thru
the movie,and the viewer slowly learns how mental illness can
skip a generation,and still bear brunt,like a Locomotive w/o know
conductor.
Y'know like round dis hear pop stand.
Of course,it's best we still use our little Lionel train sets at
Christmas,and also get our favorite Bunny,out the closet fur Easter.

ok. he said
but this is not as much how they are raised as the fact that they are raised by their parents.

i think he means kids shuld b raised by their parents. my mom was bad n i dont think i shuld b raised by her. what about kids in foster homes who rnt raised by their parents. i think he thinks they will turn out bad but i dont think so.
i think is how kids r raised n not by who.
he said bad runs n families so does he think ill end up bad like my mom?

Littlejoe, you are a good kid. You came from a bad place. Now you are in a good place with people who deserve you. They love you. Just because your mom made mistakes does not mean you will.

Bad and good run in all families littlejoe. It all comes down to making choices for ourself and having someone to support us.

I am glad you are in a safe place and around people who care about you and will help you to make good choices. Sometimes life is hard. Harder than it ever should be for one so young. But good things happen all the time and they will for you too.

Lots of pretty succesfull people had bad parents. If you like I can show you a list?
Some of them are pretty famous now.
They'er all nice people who live very happy lives, despite how they were treated as a child and it didnt matter who raised them.

That's nice Inviolable and it sure is true!!!

Here we go, all of these people were "not" raised by their natural parents.
And this is a very short list, there are tens of thousands more who are just as successfull if not more.


Babe Ruth, Famous Baseball Player,
Armstrong, Louis, African-American musician,
Boone, Daniel, American soldier and explorer,
Cain, Dean, American actor,
Callahan, John, American cartoonist,
Capote, Truman, American author,
Carver, George Washington, African-American chemist and educator,
Chaplin, Charlie and Sydney, British-American actors,
Chisholm, Colin, American writer,
Clinton, Bill, President of the USA,
Cole, George, British actor,
Danson, Ted, American actor,
Dean, James, American actor,
Ellison, Larry, US software executive,
Ford, Gerald R., President of the USA,
Hoover, Herbert Clark, President of the USA,
Jackson, Andrew, President of the USA,
McQueen, Steve, American actor,
Nelson, Willie, American singer,
Poe, Edgar Allan, American author,
Dave Thomas, owner and founder of the Wendy's Restaurant chain,
Scott, George, Famous boxer,
Thomson, John, British Actor,
Tolkien, J.R.R., Lord of the Rings,
Wallace, Edgar, British Aurther,
Little Richard, American muscian,
Brosnan, Pierce, Irish, British actor,
Brown, James, African-American musician,

Here we go, all of these people were "not" raised by their natural parents.
And this is a very short list, there are tens of thousands more who are just as successfull if not more.


Babe Ruth, Famous Baseball Player,
Armstrong, Louis, African-American musician,
Boone, Daniel, American soldier and explorer,
Cain, Dean, American actor,
Callahan, John, American cartoonist,
Capote, Truman, American author,
Carver, George Washington, African-American chemist and educator,
Chaplin, Charlie and Sydney, British-American actors,
Chisholm, Colin, American writer,
Clinton, Bill, President of the USA,
Cole, George, British actor,
Danson, Ted, American actor,
Dean, James, American actor,
Ellison, Larry, US software executive,
Ford, Gerald R., President of the USA,
Hoover, Herbert Clark, President of the USA,
Jackson, Andrew, President of the USA,
McQueen, Steve, American actor,
Nelson, Willie, American singer,
Poe, Edgar Allan, American author,
Dave Thomas, owner and founder of the Wendy's Restaurant chain,
Scott, George, Famous boxer,
Thomson, John, British Actor,
Tolkien, J.R.R., Lord of the Rings,
Wallace, Edgar, British Aurther,
Little Richard, American muscian,
Brosnan, Pierce, Irish, British actor,
Brown, James, African-American musician,
wow:D thank u. that is cool