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.

 

We're here! We're queer! We're 13!

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotDogNoBun
reply to post by dannyfal
 


It is an illness, because it impairs your judgement and you life choices, just like having depression or any other chemical or hormonal imbalance.


"impairs" your judgement? isn't that an opinion? where is your source on this that homosexuality impairs your judgement?




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
ah man i hope your kid just turns out gay and u wake up to see that theres no such thing as right or wrong. its all relative and subjective. would u shun ur kid if he was gay?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


hehe funny you should say that, i did write in my first responce please don't try the interlectually dishonest trick of saying rome and greece fell, it's undeniable that they both ascended to greatness while fully accepting and enjoying homosexual contact - infact many people have argued that rome was in good shape even as late as Constantine converted to Christianity around 300ad. Those empires certainly didn't fall due to homosexuallity.



Culture sets the norms.


That's what we're all telling you - that's our point. You seem to be suggesting that only one thing is right and thats the opinion you happen to hold - we are saying that maybe its right for you to be a hetrosexual and good luck with that, some people however its right for them to be gay - good luck to them with that...

You seem to be stuck in this idea that either everyone or noone can be gat - why do you think its an all or nothing thing? maybe you missed the subtle point i make in my description of the natural world - biologically im sure you as an athiest will agree we decend from apes, i'll tell you an interesting bit of biology if you like - there is an interesting split between different monkey species, some have much larger testicles than others. This might not seem important but actually it is, we decend down the small testical branch, why is this you may wonder? Our forefathers fought eachother to see who controlled the maiting rights of the women, often the alpha male would mate with most if not all of the women thus the strongest man would produce children... The other type of monkey were more free with their sexual favours and one female monkey would come on heat and have sex with all the other monkeys, thus the larger the load of seamen which could be inserted into the fertile womb the greater the chance of being the winning sperm and thus passing on genes.

What does this have to do with homosexuallity? Well when one or two alpha males were taking all the best women what do you suppose the others did? Of course the biological desire for sexual stimulation was vital for continuation of the species, the male monkeys having no female to mate with had to relive the desire somehow, if you've ever been to a zoo you've almost certainly seen a monkey pleasuring itself, it's also common for them to engage in homosexual sex both in zoos and the wild.

The early days of humanity were full of examples of homosexual behaviour, saying that humanity wouldn't exist if homosexuallity is aloud is totally nonsense, saying that homosexuallity is unnatural is ever more absurde - it's show all though nature, if you've never owned a gay rabbit you've probably never owned rabbits.

Well how about this one then, your main problem with gay people is they don't reproduce, how about people who simply don't care about the gender of the person they're talking to or playing with? I don't suppose that you think it's ok for someone to sleep with men as long as he also sleeps with women do you?

you keep talking about anatomy, what do you mean by this? I'm not too shaby on my biology knowledge and i don't know of any reason that anatomy would stop homosexuallity being ok - maybe you could expand on this?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
What a strange thread.

You know, where people decide to put their bits in other people isn't really an issue for anyone but the people involved.

Likewise, peoples feelings for others are between them and the other person.

Neither should be dictated by religion, or politics.

Describing gay sex as deviant, or abhorrent and "against nature" is silly, because the very same practices can be carried out between a man and a woman, and apparently its being done much more frequently these days according to the statistics on curbing unwanted pregnancies.

Does that mean that an increasing percentage of the hetrosexual community is also becoming "deviant" and "abhorrent"?

Fact is this. Not everyone is the same. Deal with it. Personally, I realised I was into the girlies when I was about 9 years old, but if these kids have realised that they are gay at 13 then thats between them, their life and the people they deal with on a daily basis.



[edit on 25/9/09 by neformore]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid

Well, hello Intrepid!

A ton of thanks for those pics. Mary Ann (Dawn Wells) was my crush for many years back when I was a little redneck. Ginger couldn't hold a candle to her!


I have to agree with those who admonished you for bringing religion into the picture. As I see it, this has nothing to do with religion, unless you are bringing in the fact that modern Western culture does include a smattering of Judeo-Christian morals. If that is the case, then I point out to you that having that smattering of morals is far far removed from the actual practice of the religion.

If you wanna get right down to it, those same morals prohibited me from openly stating what I would have liked to do to/with Mary Ann.
The real stigma being debated is as much about children's exposure to sexuality openly at such a young age as it is about hetero- versus homosexuality.

TheRedneck
(P.S.: That pic of Jeannie... it showed her belly button! The TV shows never did that; the censors wouldn't allow it.

Ah hate censors...)



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
This thread is about one thing.

Homophobia.

Anybody here that says this is about kids 13 being too young to think about sex is either, lying or ignorant.

Kids start thinking about sex very early. What do you think kids are thinking about when they start playing with their respective privates? Baseball? I had a woody for the maids when I was 7.

I'm sure all of you knew gay kids in the 7th grade. Tell the truth, every other word was F%g or L$sbo. You all called each other the F word or called somebody else it. You know it, don't deny it, you are lying.

This is pathetic, why do you try to veil everything?
What are you afraid of?

You talk about freedom of speech, but you censor yourselves with deception.

Frakking Cowards!



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Just a question to put out there...sexuality emerges at puberty, no? I mean...without various social pressures, that is the natural time it is expressed. Last I checked, most males don't hit puberty until 12 or later. VERY few at age 10. Meaning these coming out at 10 are a result of social pressures, not anything physical.

Here's my thing about gays and lesbians. I could care less what anyone does, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Why should I care? But I am tired of the dishonesty about it. The "born gay" argument. This here is just more proof that it is nothing of the sort. You're gay because of social and psychological influences, (nurture,) not nature. That doesn't necessarily make it a choice, really, but it is a sexual deviance based on psychological conditions. Why is that so hard to admit? I have some mildly "deviant" things that I happen to like; I don't go about saying I was born that way. I wasn't. But they please who I am, because of the psychology of my personality.

Here's to honesty.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
You're gay because of social and psychological influences, (nurture,) not nature. That doesn't necessarily make it a choice, really, but it is a sexual deviance based on psychological conditions.


So how do you explain someone that was raised with football, baseball, cars, etc, manly things and still like that stuff but still happens to be gay?



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Courtesy of ATS temporarily going down, my lengthy reply was eaten. To try again, more briefly:

Cultural stereotypes are ultimately, from a psychological standpoint, too superficial to be more than a minor influence on sexuality. Take steelworkers, long held to have a huge number of gays amongst them. In some cases, such as this statistical anomaly, it might even be conjectured that such stereotypes can, with some personality types, be catalysts for deviance from the natural state of things.

Take Freud for example; while his work has largely been shunned in the modern field of psychology, as it is slowly consumed by the belief that all actions are the results of genes, (to fulfill the yearning for abdication of responsibility,) his work, and he himself, are prime examples of the complexity of the psychology of sexuality.

To give you a simple example, why do many men heavily prefer women of one hair color over any other? I think anyone would be hard pressed to prove the psychology behind that, and that is a far more superficial fragment of sexuality than gender preference.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


What do you make of same-sex animal behaviour ?
Do you regard it as some societal influence also.
Or do you think it is possible that `homosexuality` has a genetic basis , with its outward expression subject to societal influences .

My heterosexuality has a genetic basis but its outward expression has been inculcated into me by the socialisation process, i would imagine gay culture exerts a similar influence amongst its minority.

===============================================
With widespread same-sex behaviour observed in the animal kingdom , there surely is more to it than just learned behaviour among humans .

But i`m sure we can all agree that, all science concerning homosexuality has become highly politicised .

[edit on 26-9-2009 by UmbraSumus]

[edit on 26-9-2009 by UmbraSumus]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


I applaud your honesty, but you are still wrong.

You'd be right if this was 1900 but it isn't and you can't cherry pick from Freud and just ignore another 100 years of research and empirical evidence.

Read this

As usual ignorance is fed by laziness.
Don't just read what justifies your bias.

Same sex coupling is normal in humans and other species. It's not a pathology and it's not environmental. While environmental and choice homosexuality occurs, it's not the predominant causation. Most gay people are born gay. There is no evidence to support claims that it is a deviance, in fact science spupports the opposite.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystrange

Same sex coupling is normal in humans and other species. It's not a pathology and it's not environmental.

You know, I keep hearing this argument, but it always confuses me. Here's why:

I have two outside male dogs. Occasionally I will see one of them trying to mount the other. That would be akin to what we deem as homosexuality in humans, according to your argument. But never have I seen a male dog ignore a female in heat to go after a male. In the homosexual humans I have known, they have absolutely no interest in females, but much interest in males (this by their own admission). Therefore the correlation is broken.

There are also other differences. Humans generally do not mate in public (unless they are being paid for it
). Dogs do, regularly. Humans have a sense of privacy, perhaps induced by societal pressure, while dogs do not. However, I would not hesitate to suggest that dogs could not be deterred from openly mating with another dog regardless of who else is present. We apparently can.

All animals are subject to the influence of pheromones to at least partly control the mating response. Females in heat produce these chemical messengers, which then stimulate the males and lead to mating. In humans, we have pretty much taken control of this process through the use of fragrances that mimic natural pheromones. That is hardly 'natural', and the very fact that the Axe Bodywash commercials are obvious exaggerations is a testament to the fact that these natural pheromones actually play a less important role in our sexuality than they do in other animals.

All this tells me that dogs do not have the sense of right and wrong we do, and are more driven by chemical influence than by intellectual realization. Thus, a dog who receives 'confusing' chemical signals in the absence of a female can be considered to be less 'responsible' for 'improper' choices than an human who has access to the opposite gender.

Another point that confuses me in your argument is that of evolutionary theory. The basis behind evolutionary theory is that mutations which improve the ability of an animal to survive will be passed down to future generations, while mutations (or lack of such) that decrease an animals ability to survive will not, thus insuring that the most hardy traits of the species survives. This would be impossible to accomplish if homosexual preference in animals existed to the extent it does in humans. No genetic traits may be passed to another generation except through reproduction. Therefore, if homosexuality (defined as strongly preferring same sex over opposite sex) were to become the 'norm' among a species, that species would quickly die off within a few generations. It is not possible for dogs to use technology to genetically create puppies artificially. Only we, humans, have that ability.

So while I admit that same-sex coupling occurs in the animal kingdom, I also can state that it is not the same activity as human homosexuality. The drives are different, the mechanisms are different, and the extent to which the behavior occurs is much less pronounced.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
You know, where people decide to put their bits in other people isn't really an issue for anyone but the people involved.

I think if this was any other topic you would disagree with yourself
if a kid buys mind altering substances that isn't the neighbourhood's business? If you didn't know kids are our future and require guidance.

Even if your neighbour was a wife beater and the wife just took it, would you just let it happen?


Originally posted by neformore
Describing gay sex as deviant, or abhorrent and "against nature" is silly, because the very same practices can be carried out between a man and a woman, and apparently its being done much more frequently these days according to the statistics on curbing unwanted pregnancies.

I'm not against that position
Or any other non-reproductive position

That's not the point though


Originally posted by neformore
Does that mean that an increasing percentage of the hetrosexual community is also becoming "deviant" and "abhorrent"?

No because once again that's not the issue


I understand everyone's points here, but one day I will be having kids
I know I will, my wife keeps bugging me about it and as well as our parents

And I want them to live in a civilized society, so OF COURSE I have to actually care about that society. I mean of course.....



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystrange
Anybody here that says this is about kids 13 being too young to think about sex is either, lying or ignorant.

You must have skimmed posts or not read the article
Some of these kids aren't just "thinking" about sex many are in relationships.

I don't know about you man but whether I have a boy or a girl 13 is wayyy tooo young for my kid to be in a relationship. Anyone who disagrees is either not yet a parent capable of zero empathy, or an irresponsible parent.

13 is an age where children are supposed to experience childhood remember?



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Anyone who was a teenager in the mid sixties, were all aware of the appeal that the gals on TV had. It was a time that long held taboos and broadcasting barriers were being stripped away. Barbara Feldons exposed belly button was a first...then Dawn Wells character followed suit.

The wiggle and jiggle of sex kittens in the movies, was copied and put onto television...especially in comedies.

Who could possibly forget Dean Martins "Gold Diggers" dancers? I sure haven't. They had the KA-POW factor times ten. Especially to a pimple faced teenage kid who hadn't had his first date yet!

Unfortunately, it was also a time of profound strife for anyone who was a little different. Unless you lived in an area where there was a counter culture, you just were not exposed to "the other elements" of society.

I was raised "Hopelessly Midwestern", and I remember the first time I was exposed to someone who was "Queer"! I was frightened and ask my father about it. He went ballistic, and wanted to know who the pervert was that exposed himself to me. ( It was a older teen at a public pool in the changing area) I didn't know who he was...just that he asked me to do something...suffice it to say; indelicate...and very bad. I ran way screaming!
I was thirteen.

Anyway, I had no idea up to that time that people were anything other than
what my Mom and Dad were...a male and a female who were married.
Nobody talked about someone being Homosexual...not where I lived!

For crying out loud, it was considered fairly risque and tongue wagging worthy, if someone was having an affair, got caught, and was getting a divorce! Girls who wore low cut tops and short shorts were called tramps, by my mother. God forbid she smoked cigarettes as well! "Call the cops, Vern!"

A teenage gal down the street from us, got pregnant when she was 16, and was sent away to live with an Aunt and Uncle out west...the telephone lines in our area glowed red hot for months afterwards...our house included! It was savory salacious stuff! Oh my!...

Today's culture may be a little too open and free to show the world who they are, but, that is the way it is now. I just wish that tots weren't exposed to some of the stuff that they are at such young ages.

Europeans were much more open and culturally free than Americans were for generations. Especially after World War Two ended. I guess we are catching up...

The "Gold Diggers" seem tepid and quaint compared to the classless acts
that make it onto television today...OH well...Que Sara Sara!



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 




13 is an age where children are supposed to experience childhood remember?


Most of the kids were dating at 13 when I was 13, and that was back in the early 80's.

They weren't necessarily having sex (some were) but they were definitely dating.

I knew one gay couple in my high school (it was kind of an open secret) back in 86.

This really isn't that new - it's just that it's not some big scandal anymore.

Personally I prefer it that kids don't end up blowing their brains out because of their "terrible secret", so I am fine with these kids being able to deal with it honestly.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I think if this was any other topic you would disagree with yourself


Its not any other topic. Its this one. Its specific to this topic. I have differing views on other topics. I find that those who have a blanket approach to everything just wallow in ignorance. Everything needs to be weighed on its own merits.



if a kid buys mind altering substances that isn't the neighbourhood's business? If you didn't know kids are our future and require guidance.

Even if your neighbour was a wife beater and the wife just took it, would you just let it happen?


They are other topics, not relevant to this one. This topic is about acceptance of sexual orientation, not drug taking or wife beating.



That's not the point though


I think you need to make your point



And I want them to live in a civilized society, so OF COURSE I have to actually care about that society. I mean of course.....


If you care about your society, then you must accept that people are different and have a right to live as they wish within the laws of the land.

If someone has a sexual preference thats different to yours, then providing they aren't doing anything illegal, it shouldn't be an issue for you.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Any respect for this poster has, I'm afraid, been obliterated by his inability to comprehend my post.


Originally posted by ModernAcademia
the guy who mentioned only 10% of people are gay and others responding about maybe being a redhead is a disease too or left-handed.

Well those are completely off the wall analogies in my opinion.

Being a redhead doesn't decrease your life span and make you more prone to diseases, neither does being left handed.


First, just to clear this up, the redhead analogy was supposed to point up how stupid the statistical argument that "gay"="abnormal" is. People have a territorial need to establish normality with themselves in the middle of it. It's pathetic and irrational, but they can't see it.

Second, don't throw around assertions about lifespan and proneness to disease without something to back it up. Being gay doesn't make you more prone to disease and so on: being promiscuous might, but both gay and straight people are promiscuous. It is true that promiscuity is part of gay culture, but that's a separate issue from simply being gay, and it could be argued that it's society's pressure on gay people that makes them seek solace in that level of promiscuity.


On another note, i'd also like to throw this at everyone.
If being gay is normal then why do many gay men act so feminine?


It's not whether being gay is normal that's the issue. In fact, simply posing the question in that way sets up a completely irrelevant dichotimy, viz., "normal vs. abnormal". Again, it's this need to define normality as "where I am". It's a psychological need that bespeaks a certain amount of insecurity, an unwillingness to see the world as it is.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   
OK, MA, you need some schooling...


Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by NatureBoy
If i can't mention religion then you have to stop acting as if the moral system of old christendom is infallable, you gotta stop saying things are 'unnatural' and 'immoral' or 'perverted' or 'sick' or anything along those lines which begs the question.

Forget religion, take a look at human anatomy


Originally posted by NatureBoy
I'm sure you'll agree that it sounds terrible, thats why we came up with society and moral systems and code of laws, etc, etc, etc

Forget morals, look at the human anatomy


In bold for the hard of thinking...

When you "look at the human anatomy" it's not a passive thing. If it were, YOU WOULDN'T RECOGNISE WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT. When you "look at the human anatomy" you bring with you ALL THE UNCONSCIOUS ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOUR CULTURE HAS TAUGHT YOU.

You can't separate even the act of looking from your cultural background.

You clearly have all sorts of assumptions around the words "natural" and "normal". "Normal" is a quality that is culturally determined. Yet you try to spin some spurious absolutiem out of it. It doesn't work.

To understand what's going on in your mind, try reading some Wilhelm Reich. He understood how societies manipulate the sex urges of their populations for political ends.

On a more general point....

I find it rather amusing that there are people who are arguing that gayness is wrong because it's a chamical imbalance: and there are also people who arguing that gayness is wrong but it's due to being brought up wrongly.

It's also obvious that a lot of the anti-gay posters haven't had much to with gay people. I worked on cruise ships for years, so I got to know quite a few, some better than others. And I have to say I'm not hugely keen on many aspects of gay culture, but that's ok because it's nothing to do with me. (Actually, there's a Pride march every year in my town, and then it does impinge. I resent the intrusion... but less than, say, the Labour Party Conference, which is messing up the whole town for a week. And I loathe and detest those parasites far more than a bunch of harmless dancing nellies.)

[edit on 27-9-2009 by rich23]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
ok question for everyone

So there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, ok

But tell me, is homosexuality equally okay as heterosexuality?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join