So, what is the consensus on the cause for homosexuatily?

So, what is the consensus on the cause for homosexuatily?
Is it a glorified fetish?
If this thread isn't Veeky Forums related, I apologise.
t. Confused Faggot.

It's a mental disorder. It was in the DSM, and then later removed for reasons of political correctness.

Ok, thank you for your answer.
What do you think should be my next course of action?
Preferably, one that keeps me alive.

don't fuck another man in the ass, for starters.

It was originally in the DSM for political reasons (Christianity, which is a political ideology.) It was removed because it was scientifically correct to do so, even though very unpolitically correct.

>Current year
>Still trying to delineate order from disorder
>Can't define either one
>Keep bullshitting the public because to do otherwise is to begin to admit the ineffectual atrocities your field has committed under infantile, arrogant, and misguided ideas
>Got fucked hardcore via the Rosenhan experiments
>Can't let go
>Can't admit the human species can't handle diagnosing something with no hard testing and hazy criteria
>Can't admit the majority of the human species are braindead degenerates, your field is at best educated morons, and you can't even instill a solid ontological and epistemological self awareness to avoid petty confirmation bias, the lowest and most degenerate heuristic you could scrape out of the bottom of the barrel
>Can still take your field seriously when there doesn't exist a single human being on this planet that can prove themselves sane if pressed and observed over time
Throw it out. Try again.

While that sounds easy on paper, due to natural human libido, along with my lack of interest in celibacy, means that is unlikely.
I suggest a compromise, I shall not have anonymous hookups, orgies, or do drugs, and will instead focus on meaningful relationships, and will never cheat.
Does this satisfy you, and even if it doesn't, should I care?

There is no consensus on a cause. There are weak genetic correlates, but also both social and epigenetic factors (for example, the more older brothers you have, the greater a chance there is that you are gay). It has also been observed in many species, so calling it a "fetish" seems to generalise poorly.

It seems on the face of it that human lineages that produce homosexual individuals should eventually be eclipsed by those who don't due to less children; countering that, I have heard a hypothesis that having adults around that don't participate in the production of children but still help with the raising and rearing of them could improve the fitness of the lineage overall. But that's evolutionary psych and it's not a very good field, no experiments and all that.

The people who don't like gay people are one of the following:
1. People who have an innate disgust reaction to homosexual behaviour. Their reaction the same as how they reacted as kids when they first heard about hetero sex (I put my what where?!). They develop urges and experience social reinforcement to get over that initial reaction when it comes to the opposite sex, but not so for gay sex.
2. People who are philosophically opposed to homosexual behaviour. These people are all idiots with terrible and unscientific arguments, without exception. They reinforce and validate the feelings of those in the first group.
3. People who are afraid for the treatment of gay people by a society who hates them. In this group are the loving parents who send their kid to gay conversion therapy, not because they hate their kid for being gay, but because they're afraid for their kid's future facing terrible treatment by those in the first two groups.

If the second group goes away, the first and third will collapse.

You go find and fuck that ass, OP. Science is indifferent to you.

That sounds good to me. Main issue people like me have against the LGBT folk is how degenerate they are.

If you fuck someone in the ass or not, you're still gay, so just do it nigga.

I assume you're talking about psychology.
I'd like to know your source for:
>no human being is sane
For curiosity's sake, thank you and have a good day.

Being gay is okay. Practicing being gay is not.
If you fuck someone in the ass, you will go to hell, and you will make your parents regret they had you.

Also, being gay can be cured if you really want to be cured.

Heres a (wew) for (you)
Keep at it champ ;)

>So, what is the consensus on the cause for homosexuatily?

Sexy, hot men that look great in a speedo.

Psychiatry, primarily.

>source
I'll give you an experiment to construct the evidence yourself.
Step 1: Declare yourself or someone else insane.
Step 2: Use your imagination and try to prove yourself sane.
Step 3: Watch your everyday behaviors from this detached perspective.
Step 4: Realize you can brand any behavior otherwise in the spectrum of normality as disordered, if you're looking for it. Sitting alone? Avoiding social contact. Sign of a personality disorder and perhaps paranoid delusions. Don't agree you're insane? Ansognosia. Further evidence you're suffering from mental illness. Disagree with the well educated practitioner? You're defiant of authority and must be suffering from antisocial personality disorder, if not outright sociopathy.

Etc. Now use your head. You're lucky I typed out the obvious for you, and google "confirmation bias" while you're at it.

(You)

I apologise for troubling you.
Thank you, and have a nice day.

You're welcome, and you as well.

It's a mammal thing. Don't worry about it. Dolphins are gay as shit, and everyone likes dolphins.

The incidences of crossover from heterosexuality and hirth gender have been increasing in a rough correlation to the incidence of residue contraceptives in the general water supply.

There was always small percentages of homosexuals due to high oestrogen levels in birth mothers, however since the 1960's increased environmental saturation by c8ntraceptive residues have changed human society forever. In societies with low contraceptive use, homosexuality rates are much much lower.

from what I heard you can detect homosexuality in the brain and it is partially genetic but also determiined by hormones pre birth

it wasn't removed for political correctness. it was removed because a jewish communist spent millions of dollars to have it removed.

Dolphins also make us look like brainlets, so if there's any animal you want to follow, it's dolphins. Also, male bonobos, particularly juvenile males, fuck each other like crazy, and they're super peaceful. Homo/bisexuality just werks

Jewish communist?

Giraffes as well are super gay. Some studies found the the vast majority of giraffe sex was homosexual.

>desires money
>but also wants to create a classless society
Truly a man torn between worlds

As a student of biochemistry, I defer to the epigenetic theory of homosexuality, but of course there are most likely psychological factors at play too.

There are epigenetic markers on certain DNA sequences that mediate sensitivity to hormones in utero. Since these changes are conserved through reproduction (semi-conservative actually), men receive a marker from their dad and women from their mom. Females, for instance, have an epigenetic system that protects them from testosterone exposure in the womb. The idea is that errors in this semi-conservative replication mechanism sometimes cause males to be sensitive to estrogen, or females to be sensitive to testosterone.

What if it's not an "error"?

We have a problem with anthropomorphize nature, and the universe's machinery. We imagine these complex systems forming interrelated feedback loops that can allow for the meaningful of "'erroneous" outcomes, due to engineering errors. This need not be the case. Homosexuals might well have served a purpose in the greater whole that was beneficial to the species.

"Error" is the terminology used in biochemistry pertaining to any genetic change during replication, these random errors are the entire driving force of evolution. They can be caused by radiation, mutagenic chemicals, or simply (in the case of what we're talking about here) just a malfunction in normal cellular machinery. Pretty much no aspect of genetic biochemistry is anthropomorphized. It's resolute, mechanistic and follows the laws of thermodynamics just like any other series of chemical reactions.

Whether or not homosexuality has an evolutionary benefit is a whole other topic of discussion. My knee-jerk reaction to the sentiment is that it's a relatively common mutation that has no impact on fitness, since historically gay people don't reproduce naturally to pass on their genes.

>"Error" is the terminology used in biochemistry pertaining to any genetic change during replication
I already knew what you were saying. You're not listening to what I'm saying.

Stop cramming in more (irrelevant) detail and take a step back. And stop posting nonsense, eg:
> Pretty much no aspect of genetic biochemistry is anthropomorphized. It's resolute, mechanistic and follows the laws of thermodynamics just like any other series of chemical reactions.
We're talking about intent and purpose, things generated by the human mind. This is basic logic, you cannot have correct without incorrect, you cannot have degree or error without a spectrum of possible pathways that contains correct outcomes.

Re-read what I posted. Your post is almost entirely noise.

Well then you're too smart for me and I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

just go be a huge faggot and get your medal for it

jesus

I'm feeling really lazy and unwilling to shift my mental state to accommodate anyone else whatsoever, but you seem pretty decent. I'm apt to think mechanically as well, but you can't get too sucked in.

Anyway. What I'm saying is the cellular machinery, finer mechanics involved, etc, are not correct or incorrect without human judgement and desire. Yes, we can see when the body has active systems to counteract certain processes, and we can see a cascade of failures that stem from a given point malfunctioning. Intellectually we realize the body desires to maintain itself to within a certain range of states, and that relative to most functions and higher level activities, this is ideal. You could say the universe has "intelligence", and that all things are slave to its rules, and that this constitutes intent, but we'll ignore all that. From a strictly human perspective it all must be filtered through the subjective lens, and you need to be careful when you start getting to the low level about saying what the system "wants" and what is "erroneous". Scale must be fluid, kept in context, and kept within the greater perspective.

The body has a number of passive systems to regulate prenatal hormone exposure, like you said. But when you really look at it, after the first child (or two) it doesn't really seem to give much of a fuck about correcting for induced mechanical problems. If subsequent male offspring are exposed to more estrogen, will take on different social roles, and might not be breeding outright, what makes it an error? From what perspective is this outcomes due to a chain of erroneous outcomes? None that I can see as meaningful. Look at canines and giant otters. They're all centered around one dominant breeding pair. That's just how it is. It's not an error.