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: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Out of curiosity, what evidence is there that "it" is a psychological disorder.


It is behavior that deviates from nature's formula of male-female sexual relation. Do you think masturbation is a psychological disorder?



Because the majority of the reasons for calling sexual behavior that is indeed .... religious convictions, not objective evidence.


Ugh for once don't bring religion into this.




posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Same sex attraction is not (and never has been) a psychological disorder ... hasn't been considered that for over 40 years (or more, even at the beginning of what we term psychotherapy, see Freud, S, and Ellis, H.)

I'm not sure why "belief" enters into it. Why do "they" care about what they think is someone else's neurosis?

Are they also concerned about arachnophobia or anxiety?

Doesn't add up.]
edit on 3-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

It has already been shown that homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom. Thus you are shot down already. No masterbation (also in nature) is not a disorder either. Read a newer DSM neighbor.

Religion is indeed why minority sexual preferences were considered to be "aberrations".



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

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

By wrong, I mean "incoherent", and by "incoherent", I mean "does not cohere". To what, then, does homosexuality "not cohere to"? What I perceive to be the "metaphysical pattern" expressed in the creative dynamism of nature.

Mind, Matter, right, left, up, down, good, evil, sun, moon, day, night, life, death, male and female.

Does any of that have deeper meaning? Or is this just the Human penchant (or the brains penchant) for noticing patterns and projecting significance into them?

People are more Important than Metaphysics



I don't think any sane person - and by sane, I mean, aware of how they work, and seek to relate that knowledge with care to their relations with Others - could deny that Human beings are more important than metaphysical commitments.

I make this statement not just because it is intuitively plausible, but because evolutionarily speaking, our brain primarily evolved via the activating presence of the Human Other, and so produced an excited phenomenology (feeling good). Thus, wouldn't it be retarded to hack away at the very source of your capacity to feel good i.e. to hurt, disrespect, or dishonor, a Human Other?

So "the metaphysics" of this moral situation being described puts the real-life needs of the Human being ahead of abstract reflection upon the natue of reality. Because of this, I am a libertarian, and so, do not wish to coerce or press upon other people anything they themselves do not wish to believe.

This supremely sane way of thinking is a corollary of a realistic understanding of Human vulnerabilities, and so, seeks to honor that reality by not destabilizing Human relations by provoking Others into defending their views, leading you to defend yours, and so mindlessly throw the Human collective into a feedback loop that operates as a system dynamic upon the individual units.

So whats my issue?



I feel as if its completely natural - coherent - for the physical mind and body of the Human to be responsive i.e. to be "activated" into a state of awesome wonder, and to actually enforce upon itself the recognition of a need to restrain itself from some forms of action.

I fantasized earlier this:

Someone asks me:

"are you disturbed by those feelings"?

And honestly, I answer, "yes".

"Why are you disturbed"?, my interlocutor asks

"Because it doesn't seem like its right", I answer.

Ultimately, it dawns upon me that the issue is feelings, and how we respond, or admit into our being, the execution and elaboration of certain feelings.

Is it wrong to suppress or restrain feelings? Surely, this can't be the core of the argument, otherwise we'd need to criticize the hundreds of times a day we need to restrain a feeling we have lest we hurt another and bring needless stress into our lives. We restrain and inhibit all the time - and it's necessary, because the "floating of our thoughts" goes every which way, literally, to as far as our brain-minds can be probabilistically activated into imagining. If I had the thought of ripping someones head off, would I be a "prude" not to do it? Or, simply, a mature and self-aware Human, disturbed by this thought, but only "somewhat" because I know I would never do it. My knowledge of my self "dilutes" the thought. But indeed, if I saw myself genuinely able to do such a thing, my conscience would trigger a "collapsed heart beat", i.e. an anxiety attack would ensue, because I do not want to hurt another person.

Why does insanity scare us? Because like all creatures on this planet - and presumably, throughout the universe - matter is intrinsically inclined to "relax" the stresses moving through the system, and so, it compels the organism to perceive coherently - i.e. to correlate knowledge with immediate experience.

Homosexuality of course, will not inevitably produce evil people. The vast majority of homosexuals are homosexual because of a life-time of biological conditioning, and, not being offered by society any way to process these energies, come to experience their condition as "genetic" and "intrinsic" to what they are, as opposed to a state of being to which their biology is currently attracted.

In any case, I can of course conceive different points of view, the most popular and sophisticated of which derives from a "spiritual gnosis" - or knowledge - that has as an implication of its perspective a sort of "nullifying" influence on the expressed world.

I do not wish to analyze such a view point (although I know many readers may have that view point), but only wish to say that there is nothing evil, at all, in wishing to honor your sense of metaphysical reality, just as, for instance, any normal and sane human being would seek to honor the person they're speaking with, and not insult them.

This then leads to a final issue: what if my commitment to a metaphysical view that contradicts that of another, disturbs them? Now, the disturbance isn't simply in me, but in how they experience their own actions and beliefs against a viewpoint that disavows its coherency.

If tolerance is tolerance, should it not be a tolerance with a bit of sophistication? If homosexuality legitimately compels reflective thinkers to "honor" physical realities insinuations: in the creative capacity emerging in the coming together of opposites (X and Y chromosomes), is it not possible for our Humanhood to maintain its priority in our relations, leaving our private metaphysical views to have power in our own personal spiritual lives?

This issue is a subtle issue that every mind has an impulse to pre-conceive. If you already agree with this general orientation, you're likely to appreciate the nature of my argument. Conversely, if you are committed to the absolute moral legitimacy of homosexuality, you make that assertion without reference to how the Human is epistemologically motivated to conceive a metaphysics, and so, simply wish that everyone could see things as "clearly" as you do, without considering the objective elements that entrain our awareness.

All in all, homosexuality is not evil and will not perforce create badness in society. The only thing which promotes badness is an egotistical self-absorption that fails to relate to the Other with respect and care.


If you think that being gay is wrong, there's a simpler solution than all the stuff you posted:

If you don't like gays, don't be gay.

Personally speaking I don't have to be gay, nor do I have to understand why people are gay, I just need to acknowledge that it's not my place to make that moral judgement about others. Further, rather than go out of my way to condemn others for something I'm ignorant to, I embrace them as friends and neighbors, and avoid the divisive drama often injected due to religious dogma and brainwashing. As an atheist I embrace my neighbors and love all, which, ironically, are the virtues that the hypocritical religious right often try to claim as their own.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

It has already been shown that homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom.


Observing the behavior of animals is not how we as humans should set a standard. There are videos of animals eating their own feces in captivity. Is that normal too?



No masterbation (also in nature) is not a disorder either.


So there is nothing strange about literally F*&%ing your self?

edit on 3-10-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Oh look shifting goal posts. Someone is trying to change the game


Your biases are clearly showing. Like I said, read a new version of the DSM, and try not to let a poorly edited religious text tell you what is correct, when it contradicts its self in so many places.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cooperton

Same sex attraction is not (and never has been) a psychological disorder ... hasn't been considered that for over 40 years.

I'm not sure why "belief" enters into it. Why do "they" care about what they think is someone else's neurosis?

Are they also concerned about arachnophobia or anxiety?

Doesn't add up.


People have been trying to "fix" others to what they think is normal since forever - it is the basis of medicine/psychology. I am unsure that male-male sexual relation could reach the same ethereal bliss that I have experienced with a woman, but I have never tried homosexuality so I can't make an opinion on that. Lock and key model makes more sense than key and key model.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Ever seen what prisoners do with their scat? Look it up.

Are you really suggesting that masturbation is pathological somehow? Really?

Are you just in from the 1880s?



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Oh look shifting goal posts. Someone is trying to change the game


Your biases are clearly showing. Like I said, read a new version of the DSM, and try not to let a poorly edited religious text tell you what is correct, when it contradicts its self in so many places.


What are you talking about? You said animals exhibit homosexual behavior, therefore it must be normal for humans. Yet, we observe animals eat their own feces, do you think this demonstrates that eating your own poop is normal?

Observing animals should not be a standard for how humans should live.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cooperton

Are you really suggesting that masturbation is pathological somehow? Really?


Do you realize masturbation is literally F*&%ing your self?
edit on 3-10-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cooperton

Same sex attraction is not (and never has been) a psychological disorder ... hasn't been considered that for over 40 years.

I'm not sure why "belief" enters into it. Why do "they" care about what they think is someone else's neurosis?

Are they also concerned about arachnophobia or anxiety?

Doesn't add up.


People have been trying to "fix" others to what they think is normal since forever - it is the basis of medicine/psychology. I am unsure that male-male sexual relation could reach the same ethereal bliss that I have experienced with a woman, but I have never tried homosexuality so I can't make an opinion on that. Lock and key model makes more sense than key and key model.


So, you're saying that all issues with homosexuality are merely control issues? Hmm, can't argue with that, still doesn't make any sense. Using my examples, are we trying to eliminate arachnophobia from society? No? Why not?

Without being too prurient, I assure you that you need to expand your horizons of what is possible a la the "hardware."
edit on 3-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You don't even get your logical dishonesty do you?

It has been repeatedly stated in this thread that "homosexuality is not seen in the animal kingdom", despite evidence to the contrary. So you and your holy roller friends (its not the atheists who are saying this) either:

(a) Say that is not really homosexuality
or
(b)Bring in another behavior. In this case coprophilia and masterbation.

So what am I talking about? You got disproven in one area, so you dodge to another, in hopes that people will forget the OP got torpedoed on the first page.

So neighbour, how exactly do you think we should base the standards of how humans should live then? What is our guiding light



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Is there really homosexuality in the animal kingdom or are they bisexual or even just overly sexual?
I'm not sure there is a documented animal that only mates with the same sex.

All cases I have seen they are just after any sexual pleasure and eventually go back to the opposite sex to mate.

Here is a really good article about homosexuality in the animal kingdom...
www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 83Liberty

The same could be asked of humanity. Kinsey certainly had ideas on that (if you don't know google the Kinsey scale).



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You don't even get your logical dishonesty do you?

It has been repeatedly stated in this thread that "homosexuality is not seen in the animal kingdom"


I was never arguing that. You were basing human standards on what is observed in the animal kingdom. You say we observe homosexuality and masturbation in the animal kingdom so it must be normal, yet when I bring up how eating your own feces is also observed in the animal kingdom, you begin to attack me personally.

Is eating your own fecal matter normal because we see it in the animal kingdom? someone above actually tried to defend such a notion so I am interested to see where this goes. My point is - just because you observe it in animals does not mean it is normal in humans.



So neighbour, how exactly do you think we should base the standards of how humans should live then? What is our guiding light



Your heart. Anyone who has masturbated has felt the immediate shame experienced after such. We often ignore the moral sensations in our heart for the pursuit of hedonism.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: merka
Depends on how you mean "learned". Cultural influences can make homosexuality an accepted part of society, we know that from history.

Ahh. That's completely different. The 'acceptance' of homosexuality in a given culture is not advocating or influencing people to 'become' gay or partake in homosexual acts, unless, of course, that person was already inclined or pre-dispositioned to it from a genetic point of view.

It may allow homosexual members of that society to 'come out', as it were, and feel more accepted and inclusive to that culture. But 'accepting' homosexuality in society does not, in my opinion, lead to more homosexuality.

Kind of like saying, if we legalise drugs then everyone will become drug addicts. That doesn't happen either.


Or maybe they just happened to like the other person no matter their sex. After all, we're humans. We got free will to do what we enjoy. Anyone that reject that idea oppose humanity.

Agreed. There's enough hate and malice in this world, why stop people who care and love each other? What good will that do us?



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Without being too prurient, I assure you that you need to expand your horizons of what is possible a la the "hardware."


So anyone who doesn't think the same as you needs to broaden their horizons? such pomposity is a bigger problem, especially if such people are endorsing such ideas that are not the truth. Are you sure you know the truth?



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
...
It is behavior that deviates from nature's formula of male-female sexual relation.

Really? What exactly is nature's "normal"? Male and female? White and black? If you spent 5 minutes reading about the oddities of nature, you quickly realize that there is nothing normal in nature.
Mammals that lay eggs.
The male of the species that carries the eggs until birth.
Females that eat the male right after the sexual act.
Parthenogenesis.
The list goes on and on.
I hate to break it to you, but you can't put nature in a box. Far from it. There is no "formula"...

But that's besides the point. As has already been stated earlier... Homosexuality isn't just about sex. Human relationships aren't just about sex...


originally posted by: cooperton
Do you think masturbation is a psychological disorder?



John Kellogg, is that you? The 19th century sent a telegram. They want their cornflakes back...

Seriously though... Are you saying masturbation - one of the most natural sexual acts - is a psychological disorder?



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Here's a better question for several folks on this thread ... why do you care?

If you're not gay (or bi) or repressing gay (or bi) feelings ... what does it matter what we're doing?

We're here in the world with you, like it or not. Sometimes you're going to be subjected to our presence and yes, even our culture, the same way "we" have been subjected to purely heteronormative BS for centuries.

There's one too many Freudian references associated with "having it shoved down your throat" to imply that you're neutral on the issue ... and if your religion is against it ... well, don't do anything gay (or bi).

Simple.


For those who believe it is a psychological disorder, they do not want such behavior being condoned by the media/nation. Whereas the counter-argument would be, as long as it is not hurting others it does not matter.


LOL yea um, we actually barely have a grip if at all on psychology. To place it in as a psychiatric disorder is irresponsible at best. It's based in genetics, we know this - the discussion over it is purely to validate a highly biased subjective position. Which has been debunked thoroughly.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Hmm interesting. Out if curiosity, to you, does homosexuality mean just a physical act or also include the emotional aspect of love/partnership?

I'm probably wrong on this, and no doubt will incur some frowns and scorns from our gay friends, but I always felt that the word or term 'homosexuality' was really about describing the physical, more than the emotional.

Whereas 'gay' was more about the state of mind, about physical 'love' with a member of the same sex.

(Anyone comment? I'm genuinely curious)

If so, then to your point - yes, perhaps many people do have homosexual thoughts or tendencies but do not act on them due to outstanding social taboos. But, if it were about the actual 'love' of another member of the same gender - I'm not sure I'd agree. I can catagorically state I do not feel like I could ever love a man like I love my wife. I just don't see it that way.

However, ply me with enough whiskey and well.. who knows about the other side?



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
...
Your heart. Anyone who has masturbated has felt the immediate shame experienced after such. We often ignore the moral sensations in our heart for the pursuit of hedonism.


OK, that answers my above question... Don't you think if 92-95% of the male of a species and 62-80% of the female of a species does something it's natural?

If those percentages aren't high enough for you to classify something as "normal/natural" behavior, then good luck finding anything "normal" with our species. It's probably one of the few things our entire species have in common. That and breathing oxygen.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join