It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Thinking Homosexuality

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   
why is it called homo? Are these people like Homogenized?




posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Face up to your own homosexuality — we are all gay to some degree — and you will cease to feel that homosexuality is wrong.

People have been giving you a harder time on this thread than you deserve. You were honest about your feelings, and that deserves respect.

Perhaps this will help. I, like you and many others, am slightly revolted and disgusted by the idea of participating in a homosexual act. However, I am well aware — as perhaps you are not — of the degree to which I find men attractive. It’s not a great degree; I vastly prefer women and have never had sex with a man. Nonetheless it is there, and has been there for as long as I can remember.

For historical reasons that are of no relevance here, I became aware of human sexuality, both straight and gay, at roughly the same time. And a long-lived interest in literature and the theatre often puts me in the company of gay men and women, where I feel comfortable and relaxed — so much so that, at times, I have to stop myself from being an unintentional tease, as I sometimes also am with women. My first wife, incidentally, discovered in her mid-thirties that she preferred women to men, and left me for one. Nineteen years later, about to get married for the second time, I can barely remember the collateral resentment against lesbians that experience briefly engendered in me.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It may not be right for you, and if it isn’t, it will feel wrong. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong in principle, or even as a general rule.


edit on 1/10/16 by Astyanax because: more to add.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Yeah like Orgy's are so cool!



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: VengeanceRising

Sorry, I only argue with people who know how to use apostrophes.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Humans created apostrophy's i'm still learning.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


The act of homosexuality is wrong in the biological sense for a heterosexually reproducing species

No it isn’t. Homosexual behaviour is common across the animal kingdom. We just don’t understand exactly why it exists, but it is certainly not unnatural or ‘wrong in the biological sense’.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: VengeanceRising


Humans created apostrophy's i'm still learning.

Come and see me when you get your diploma.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Diploma's are for Humans... laughs.... Silly Human.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well said
.
You follow Islam also? I think some Christians need a page from your book.

Yeah, I'm a Muslim. There are actually a lot of Christians who feel the same & act accordingly. A quick google search will bring up a lot of congregations that openly accept LGBT members, will perform same sex marriages, and more. But people tend to ignore them in favor of the aggressive & bigoted "fire & brimstone" types from each religion.

I think it should be up to God to determine who is "righteous" or "evil". Because from my perspective, a lot of "believers" will be in for a nasty surprise come Judgment Day. They quote Scriptures strictly to justify their intolerance, but conveniently ignore all of the other requirements and rules that they're supposed to follow first.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   
so like, no offence OP, i know you pride yourself on being just the sharpest cookie,
but the understanding of biology you display in this thread is at about the level of a 90's high school textbook
and that makes it rather more difficult to swallow the hyperbole and lack of nuance in your thoughts on duality and the metaphysics of the whole thing.

also - and feel free to be thoroughly offended from here - what makes you think you can start a thread pontificating endlessly on a deeply personal and integral part of people's lives - real, living people, who in SO many cases have been persecuted and tortured their entire lives just for what they are - that you can start off this thread with the phrase "i think this is wrong", and then have any remote semblance of balance or order or objectivity? maybe have a nice long think about what that betrays. sort yourself out.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Actually I said "The act of homosexuality..."


Right. And this is an important distinction because...?


Before you assume things about me, maybe you should read what I type.


I have read what you typed. You're just making stuff up as you go along.


I think they are all behaviors that are observed in the animal kingdom. You started the path down that road, not me.


So are e.g., flight, hibernation, and the ability to dive to 1,000 meters. But you didn't mention them, or anything like them, did you?

What you did instead was choose a bunch of aggressive behaviors that everyone with any sanity agrees are undesirable, and used them as comparatives. This was deliberate, and designed to group homosexuality with things that are harmful to society. Playing innocent about it doesn't wash.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gemwolf

Good post and I love that image. Initially, before I got to the text it hit me like, "Whoa, what's this??" As soon as I read the text, all I could see was two people, who love each other, and love their children. What more could you ask for?

I came from a home which had the traditional mum and dad. But it was broken and pretty horrible. I would have loved to of had two parents who loved each other and loved me.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

I would like to start this thread with a admission: I think homosexuality is wrong.

In my opinion, I think you're wrong.

I think people are born that way; it isn't a learned behaviour and there isn't anything one can do to change that biological fact.

I know some people try to argue that it's a "defect" or error, but i don't think so. I wager the line between love for people of the same sex can be very fine and very malleable.

But the bottom line for me - if two people love each other, regardless of gender, then what's the problem? Why is it wrong? With so many people hating themselves, each other and every race, creed or religious denomination out there, what's wrong if two men or two women love each other?

So long as people are not being forced against their will into anything they would otherwise reject, I see no problem and only helps to add diversity to our species. I know that sounds oxymoronic but I honestly think it makes us better as a whole.

My opinion of course.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

I will admit Relda you called that one correctly.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AshFan

Nature/creature is under a curse just like man is

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Teikiatsu


The act of homosexuality is wrong in the biological sense for a heterosexually reproducing species

No it isn’t. Homosexual behaviour is common across the animal kingdom. We just don’t understand exactly why it exists, but it is certainly not unnatural or ‘wrong in the biological sense’.


I'll just copy/paste my last response for another person who said the same thing:

"[T]he overwhelming majority of [those behaviors] are a breeding and survival strategy. [Examples] Some smaller male fish pretend to be females so they can sneak their sperm into the larger male's stream with the ladies. Some male insects take on female characteristics after they breed with a female to confuse other males into copulating with them instead, thereby increasing their genetic contribution over others. Etc.

But humans are a different animal, pun intended. We have the consciousness and intelligence needed to understand that homosexual behavior does not contribute to successive generations.

Should humans accept and engage in regular practices of cannibalism, infanticide and gang rape? Those have been observed in hundreds of animal species as well"



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Actually I said "The act of homosexuality..."


Right. And this is an important distinction because...?


Because there is a distinction between a man looking at a woman on the street and thinking she is attractive, versus having sex with her.


I have read what you typed. You're just making stuff up as you go along.


Obviously you are not, or you choose to be obtuse.



So are e.g., flight, hibernation, and the ability to dive to 1,000 meters. But you didn't mention them, or anything like them, did you?


As soon as humans are able to perform those biological functions by themselves, they will be in scope.

It seems like you are grasping at straws just for the sake of being contrary, at this point.


What you did instead was choose a bunch of aggressive behaviors that everyone with any sanity agrees are undesirable, and used them as comparatives. This was deliberate, and designed to group homosexuality with things that are harmful to society. Playing innocent about it doesn't wash.


Of course it was deliberate. You opened that door by using the tired meme 'animals do it.' If your argument is that Behavior A is okay because animals display it in the wild, the natural extension is that Behaviors B, C and D are also okay because animals display it in the wild. Stop denying that you made your argument vulnerable to that rebuttal. I could go one step beyond that and inquire why you are insinuating that homosexuals are no better than amoral animals.
edit on 1-10-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


I'll just copy/paste my last response for another person

I think that person adequately dealt with some of the, ahem, moral issues in what you wrote. Kicked your ass, in fact.

I’m more interested in the biology. You admitted that homosexual behaviour is reproductively beneficial to some organisms in some circumstances. You pointed to some examples where the benefits are evident, even if, as in the case of the fish, it can often be difficult to work out what the benefit is.

There are plenty of species in which homosexual behaviour has been recorded, yet biology has no hypothesis to explain why it occurs. Would you bet for or against there being a genuine survival or reproductive benefit in those cases?

If you answer ‘against’, then you are a fool who is deaf to his own logic. Since I do not think you are that, I am guessing your would argue for there being such a benefit.

Yet you are not willing to admit a survival or reproductive benefit to homosexual behaviour in one animal species: your own.

Special pleading much?

You have neither an ethical nor a scientific foot to stand on here. I suggest calling a taxi. See you on another thread.


edit on 2/10/16 by Astyanax because: we hope he or she will do better another day.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Astrocyte, it’s time for a general response from you.

But please keep it short and to the point.


edit on 2/10/16 by Astyanax because: of a necessary condition.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 03:45 AM
link   
another thing i think it's worth mentioning, while the thread seems to be drifting a bit and we're on the topic;
why should it MATTER if homosexuality provides an edge in reproductive blah blah blah
surely we're above every single thing about us having to contribute to the survival of the species?
i don't see you going after what people like to eat or how they spend their recreational time, despite those also arguably having massive cumulative effect on the future of the race. should we analyse that? is every littlest thing about your life geared to the advancement of the mighty human race?
i bet you anything you like a straight person doesn't see someone they find attractive and go "ah yes, this will be an opportunity for the genetic betterment of the race and a step forward in the great progress of evolution", hell no, your instincts do their thing and you roll with it.
why should it be incumbent on anyone different to prove their value to be allowed to exist? follow that one to its logical conclusion. how sickening does that sound?




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join