Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Being queer is a sexual disorder

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
You want to see what females have done to my life, and you think i do not have a right to feel the way i do.

Get this for people reading this thread and elsehwere, there is no such thing as a superwomen that can cure males not interested in females, and i am sick of this notion that there is, and it totally ruined my life.

I have seen how much psycho females power in society can do with peoples lifes. If you think that that is the society you want then fine, but i do not want psychos getting power into my life, when i had no interest in them in my life.




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I don't think homosexuality is "about love" at all. No more than heterosexuality is "about love"... Sexuality is what it is — the biologic urge to reproduce. Before we ever evolved into modern human beings with higher brains and complex emotions, we were obeying our sexual urges. So, for the largest part of our evolutionary history, we simply had sex, and we weren't burdened with "love" or using "love" as an excuse to have sex.

What we do know about the human animal is that there are anomalies and abnormalities in our gender blueprints — there are gorgeous women out there who actually have penises, there are big hairy men who actually have vaginas, and there are hermaphrodites who have both penises and vaginas. There are also individuals who exhibit no outward abnormalities, but who are transgendered on a chromosomal level — meaning, for example, that an otherwise perfectly normal man may actually be a woman on a chromosomal level, which can only be determined through blood testing.

Although these are obviously congenital defects, they demonstrate that there is a broad range of gender possibilities for our species. It's not like we only have straight men and we only have straight women, except for a handful of congenitally defective freaks. On the contrary, I think a very large portion of the human population may have chromosomes and hormones nudged slightly out of kilter.

Many of them may not even realize they're closer to being the opposite sex.

So, it might be fair to say that on one end of the human sexuality spectrum there are straight men, and on the other end of the spectrum there are straight women; but, in between, there are probably innumerable variations that are more or less man/woman combinations. Which is what I think gives rise to what we call homosexuality — that is, when two individuals of the same gender find each other sexually attractive.

Calling homosexuality a "disorder" may be clinically correct, but only if the clinic has an extremely narrow view of human sexuality. I mean, if your clinical view is narrow enough, then anything can be considered a "disorder" — if you're a researcher at the homosexuals-only clinic, then being straight might be considered a "disorder."

Which brings up a good point. Those who are outspoken in defense of homosexuality are often as narrow-minded as those who speak against it. In this very thread, we've already seen several kneejerk posts casting aspersions on the OP. I hate to break it to you, but not everybody is required to approve of homosexuality. The very straight individuals out there may simply not be able to fathom homosexuality, and to them homosexuality does indeed seem bizarre behavior. Heterosexuals are perfectly welcome to think or believe anything they want, and they don't deserve derision from the defenders of homosexuality, okay?

Just for the record, I'm straight and married, and I'm a pretty conservative character; however, my wife and I have many lesbian and homosexual buddies along with our heterosexual buddies. By far, the lesbians seem to carry the biggest chips on their shoulders, while the flaming drag queens seem the most open-minded. Interestingly, whenever we go to dinner or on camping trips or whatever with these people, the subject of heterosexuality vs homosexuality never comes up.


— Doc Velocity



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I guess its acceptable to have a thread with queer in the title on this forum?

What about fagot, 'n-word',pakki,wop,dago......

Double stanards anyone?...or are gays the last of the worlds 'n-word's?

just a thought.

EDIT: lol at the auto delate of NIGGER to funny


[edit on 30-3-2009 by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   


Another example is porn. Why is it that the vast majority of heterosexual adult material includes very masculine and attractive MEN, and why is it that male viewers usually focus on the "grand finale"?
If they are all 100% heterosexual men (as asserted though modern social labels) surely the only adult material they would be interested in involves solely women? And they certainly shouldn't be focusing on what the male does at the end should they?

I've always wondered this: why does most porn have the "grand finale"?
I'm a man, I've never liked watching that. I try to watch porn only with females in it, if not, it's because there isn't anything else at hand.

I would say I'm almost 100% heterosexual. I honestly don't think anybody is 100% one way or another, but I could be wrong (aka I'm not 100% sure
).



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   
If Being queer is a disorder then...TAKE ME TO A DOCTOR!!!!!!

just kidding..i am not gay....

on a more serious note this research is from the watchover people...so i guess this is pure propaganda... *snip*

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Next_Heap_With]

Mod Edit: No personal attacks on other members...



[edit on 3/30/2009 by seagull]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyindevil


Another example is porn. Why is it that the vast majority of heterosexual adult material includes very masculine and attractive MEN, and why is it that male viewers usually focus on the "grand finale"?
If they are all 100% heterosexual men (as asserted though modern social labels) surely the only adult material they would be interested in involves solely women? And they certainly shouldn't be focusing on what the male does at the end should they?

I've always wondered this: why does most porn have the "grand finale"?
I'm a man, I've never liked watching that. I try to watch porn only with females in it, if not, it's because there isn't anything else at hand.

I would say I'm almost 100% heterosexual. I honestly don't think anybody is 100% one way or another, but I could be wrong (aka I'm not 100% sure
).


Highlighted for lulz.


I agree that being 100% anything is so extremely unlikely as to render the three sexual labels as completely false.

If we were to actually accept this obvious fact, most people would be forced to label themselves sexually as bisexual. Again, this shows the inadequacy of the labels we have used as acceptable descriptions.

There is a movement toward more and more young people accepting that the label closest to their actual sexual description is bisexual. It's sad that they feel they have to accept this label, when they are all just sexual, with various habits, desires and fetishes.

They are normal, just like everyone else.

Again, I hope one day we leave all the labels behind and people are more able to just enjoy their sexual identities with whoever turns their head.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I look at it this way.

Ats is suppose to deny ignorance ..right?

Yet all have said this theory is ignorant dumb stupid ect.....i think one guy even said bigoted or something to that nature.

But have you Debunked or even attempted to prove the theory wrong?

No flaming lol does not debunk the theory at hand.

And trust me million's think EXACTLY what the op posted is true ..


Show us proof gay's are born gay.
Show us proof it isn't deviant disorder.

I am just saying i would love to see both side's of a story before people get offended.

Getting mad and calling name's doe snot debunk nothing..and only makes me raise a eyebrow.Like it hit a raw nerve..



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
This person is just throwing anything around. What a load of bunk. First off, the aids problem in Africa is more like 25%. Not three.

And what does how many partners one have, have to do with anything?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused
I look at it this way.

Ats is suppose to deny ignorance ..right?

Yet all have said this theory is ignorant dumb stupid ect.....i think one guy even said bigoted or something to that nature.

But have you Debunked or even attempted to prove the theory wrong?

No flaming lol does not debunk the theory at hand.

And trust me million's think EXACTLY what the op posted is true ..


Show us proof gay's are born gay.
Show us proof it isn't deviant disorder.

I am just saying i would love to see both side's of a story before people get offended.

Getting mad and calling name's doe snot debunk nothing..and only makes me raise a eyebrow.Like it hit a raw nerve..

It's not up to us to "prove" anything. It is up to the aptly named poster of the thread to prove that gays have a dissorder. And millions of people all over the world who agree with the topic of the thread, are retarded. Factoid.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject
www.newswithviews.com...

being queer is a sexual disorder


By David R. Usher
March 29, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

(snip) .

We know that crack, heroine,

[SNIP]



I stopped reading at that point.

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a heroine and heroin has absolutely NO RIGHT delving into topics like addiction theory.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442

I stopped reading at that point.

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a heroine and heroin has absolutely NO RIGHT delving into topics like addiction theory.

Quite, and anyone gullible enough to fall for this speil, should no that drug addiction can and does get everyone, from every walk of life. gay, straight, black white, young old, rich and the poor. It (unlike most "religious" fanatics) doesn't discriminate.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
There have been reports that the men of strict middle eastern countries have increasingly engaged in homosexual activities. While it is strictly relief sex, people look the other way as long as love isn't involved and it is not flaunted.
The reason being is that there are such strict regulations regarding interactions with women.
I doubt their married sex lives is that much better either.
So like in jail, when you don't have access to women, your gay for the stay.

In the American military, men are now reporting sexual aggressive advances 25% higher then the women are, population considered.

So it seems that in the absence of women, men turn to more homosexuality. And the animal kingdom does this as well. Males are designed to spread genetics. Where is subjective.

so if men can turn to homosexuality when there are no women around, is it such a stretch that it can happen when women are around?
I don't think the cause is any one reason. But I certianly don't think it is just deviant behavior.

Me personally, I think everyone is bisexual to a degree. I think a lot more men are bisexual then they let on. So with women. I think humans are programmed to be opportunists.

I find nothing sexier then a man who is secure enough to admit another man is good looking.




[edit on 30-3-2009 by nixie_nox]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


It's as shame I can only give you one star, your post deserves so many, many more.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
There is a simple test you can perform to determine if your sexuality was chosen, you were born with it as a --shall we say, "tendancy", or is a socialization. You can do this in the comfort of your own home.

Ready? Good.

Think back to your first sexual feelings or attractions. Can you recall a time when you weighed the choices, perhaps made a list of good and bad aspects of your sexuality and then made a choice?

Me either. It just WAS. I knew from the time I was six years old that I fancied girls, even before I knew what that "fancy" WAS or what it meant. I never contemplated the value or lack of it of wanting to kiss a male. I'm not repulsed by the notion, it just didn't appeal to me -- sort of like okra. I could eat okra if I had to, but it doesn't float my boat. I think I knew that even before my mother forced me to try it. Okay, perhaps a weak analogy, but I think the concept still stands. Go ahead. Test yourself and see what you discover.

I believe that homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals are BORN with that inclination.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


......and what a fine old chestnut that is too. Thanks much, I've copied that for later use.
Personally, I try to limit burnt offerings to after sundown, away from the heat of the day.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


......and what a fine old chestnut that is too. Thanks much, I've copied that for later use.
Personally, I try to limit burnt offerings to after sundown, away from the heat of the day.

I nearly turned a builder into burnt offerings last sunday, as he was cutting up paving slabs at 8.30 am (on a sunday!!) It wasn't the illegality of working on a sunday that pissed me off, it was the fact that i had a stonking hangover and it was physically painful. (I told him I'd been working
) [/ever so slightly off topic]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


In addition to your excellent post, I would like to add a visual aid to recap the finer points.

The West Wing: The Ignorant, Tight Ass Club




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


As you are sole set on the norm..being gay is ok..your born gay...with no proof absolutely..you can be born gay.Its natural ect..

But because you seems to only want to to tackle subject's with blatant.
disrespect other than scientific reasoning...it's illogical to argue with ya over the matter.
www.narth.com...

Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.

www.msnbc.msn.com...
Pentagon memo: Homosexuality a disorder Document outlines discharge policies; department says it's under review

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position.


Even the pentagon said it's a mental disorder in 2006.
So idk.


Alot more scientific data leans towards it's some kind of mental disorder.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.


do you not think that society has a big part to play in this? Gay people are subjected to one hell of alot of mental abuse, not to mention the self loathing you invairiably go through whilst coming to terms with being different. Is it any wonder that gay people suffer more mental problems when they get one hell of alot more abuse than straight folk?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


Also, NARTH is a crypto-religious organization with a sociology / psychiatric front. It has been thoroughly discredited in legitimate scientific circles. I won't bother to cite what can easily be searched by anyone that gives a damn about the truth. I will cite some of the NARTH member's quotes:

“We, as citizens, need to articulate God’s intent for human sexuality,” -- Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, President of NARTH, CNN’s 360 Degrees with Anderson Cooper, April 14, 2007

“When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy. -- Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, President of NARTH, Feb. 10, 2007 Love Won Out conference in Phoenix

“I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation." -- Dr. Nicolosi

There are more, but why bother. If you are truly interested in the truth, you will research a bit before spewing nonsense.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join