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.

 

The psychology of Homosexuality

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





I didn't say anything about the dynamic in nature of masculine/feminine. I totally believe that. You know nothing about me, yet continue to spout ignorance about me. Again, you are wrong. You don't know me.


Ok. Follow your logic. You totally believe that, yet homosexuality doesnt undermine that dynamic? How so?

Ive spoken with you before and i have a general idea of what you believe. For instance, i know you mostly disagree with everything i say




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Lets say G-d actually does expect from mankind to set moral boundaries. Would that be evil? If he has given us the tools to change a natural homosexual attraction - it would be evil to labor in that?

It sounds like you want G-d only to be a loving G-d and not a loving AND awe-inspiring G-d who judges his creatures.

What else is "Karma" but a system that regulates morals? The biblical idea is Middah k'neged middah (Measure for measure) Is that not G-d judging man? Did he not establish nature?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I've only, quickly, scanned the preceding pages of this thread, so if what I am about to say is a repeat of what some one has already pointed out...Apologies.


If I understand the gist of your arguement, it is that homosexuals need not believe that they are unable to "change their ways" and thus become somehow, or at least somewhat "straight"; which you, couched in a morass of you own psycho-spiritual semantic mumbo jumbo, equate/conflate with what is, or should be "normal" or true-er to the (accepted) destiny/Divine/Spiritual Path.



So first question: If someone who is gay can change into someone who is straight/heterosexual, we must assume that the contrary is also possible, correct?

And if willing to be straight, alone, can make you straight, in fact, then willing to be gay, can in fact make you fully, truly, honestly and completely gay.


If one choice is possible/allowed, then the opposite choice must also be just as valid.

Get that...Equally Valid!


Ergo, The Eternal Question Arises when threads like these form: Why does it matter so much to anyone why some people are heterosexual and some people are not?


What matters is not Who you Love, but that you are capble of Love.

Being gay does not preclude a person from being able to procreate, it simply makes them less likely to procreate (and that is only if we revert to the strict biological definition of procreation. Which is about as reasonable in the 21st century as believing that you can fall off the edge of the Earth if you sail to far East or West!).



And I am sorry, but no matter how much Tradition, or East/West spitiuality you fall back on, you're just making the same old tired arguement: MY belief system is older/more popular/more "whatever" than yours and so I must be right and you must be wrong!


Please.

That kind of reasoning might have gotten you through elementary school recesses, but you were supposed to be paying attention to the lessons that were being taught in class; You know, where you were supposed to learn how to think For Yourself. Not just regurgitate all the same old fables and fears of your ancestors, even if you try to wrap them up, all pretty-like, in brand new pysco-babble, or supposedly Enlightened Spirtual utterances.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


'Lets say G-d actually does expect from mankind to set moral boundaries. Would that be evil? If he has given us the tools to change a natural homosexual attraction - it would be evil to labor in that?'

Well if it was natural..why would the creator/god want to make it unnatural..why would such an enity want to perverse his creation? That seem a little evil..kinda like said enity would be amuseing itself....just my opinion.

edit on 06/08/2011 by Cyberboiraves because: add



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Honest question here, what about being Asexual? Not attracted to anyone? Is that wrong in you're eyes?

It really complicates the thought process.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 





Being gay does not preclude a person from being able to procreate, it simply makes them less likely to procreate (and that is only if we revert to the strict biological definition of procreation. Which is about as reasonable in the 21st century as believing that you can fall off the edge of the Earth if you sail to far East or West!).


HUH? So now its primitive and outdated to procreate biologically? Wow. Your mind is straight out of Brave New World.




And I am sorry, but no matter how much Tradition, or East/West spitiuality you fall back on, you're just making the same old tired arguement: MY belief system is older/more popular/more "whatever" than yours and so I must be right and you must be wrong!


I havent made that argument. No where did i make that argument. In fact - the point of this thread was to challenge the myth and propaganda duping people into believing that homosexuality is an irreversible state of being.

However, since this has turned into a moral question.

Morally, as i explained elsewhere (but of course will be uninteresting to an "enlightened" person such as yourself) the ideal - the morality we should live up to - is present in the natural dynamic in creation. Between the feminine and masculine. These two are meant to unite in total equanimity. A man with a man is not a reflection of this spiritual dynamic, but infact goes completely against it. Thus, it is 'immoral' to not follow G-ds will, present throughout the physical creation. Us superior creatures with the ability to reason should use that G-d given reason to do what is right; to follow the creators will.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Homosexuality is neither a "feeling", a "desire" or a habit, like picking ones nose. It is a permanent and inseparable element of ones being. Period. I have a gay nephew who was effeminate from the time he was 4 years old. CLEARLY there was no "desire" or "feeling" or CHOICE involved. It is simply nature.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
No offense...



Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Thoriumisbest
 


Well, im not wrong.


Well, yes you are.


I dont mean to offend anyone.


Really ???


But the fact is: Desires CAN be changed. This is a basic fact, known since time immemorial, but due to propaganda/social factors, can be difficult to understand.


But the fact is: Homosexuality is not a desire. Your basic fact here is archaic at best !!


You being a gay man (i assume) i can understand your reservation. Youve probably already come to terms with this. But, as i said in the beginning: mystics, philosophers and metaphysicians know full well the truth of what i say.


What a load of # !!! Provide links to your philosophers and metaphysicians and I will reply with links of other philosophers and metaphysicians that will turn your assumptions into shreds. !


If you want to justify homosexuality, it cannot by definition be justified as a "law" of ones physical constitution, but as a moral preference. It is a moral decision at the end of the day.


Moral preference...moral decision...no one needs to justify homosexuality. Unless it is politely attacked. Sounds familiar?


And this is why i dont bring it up to my cousin. He can do what he wants - his moral life is in his hands.


Forget the moral innuendos. HIS LIFE is in his hands. Absolutely and totally.


All that i have ever explained to him is this. That the mind is plastic; that desire, feelings, etc, can be changed. Thats all ive said.


I agree. Surprising isn't it? But still, homosexuality isn't a desire or a feeling. It's an inner condition. Something that you very obviously do not understand.


I havent preached to him about doing what G-d wants you to do, or what is in tune with the dynamics of creation (he wouldnt appreciate such an argument anyways). So, i just let him know how things are.


I was wondering when G-d would come in the picture. It's all I will say about this.


Whether he agrees/disagree is irrelevant. Its as clear as day to anyone with self knowledge.


I'll just finish by saying that whether you understand or not is irrelevant. Homosexuality isn't a moral issue, a distortion of nature, a sacrilege to G-d, a perverted desire or a temporary feeling.

It's as clear as day to anyone with knowledge.

I'm done. Will now try to find a thread to get my good sense of humor back...
Im sorry. But that is the simple truth.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
What are the conditions of an individual's spirit and soul... What are a persons motives and intentions...what are their actions in life.....I believe this is what heaven looks at.......

I also believe many good people happen to be gay and they are going to heaven.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SonoftheSun
 


Dear Son

Yes indeed, I do hope you have put an end to this thread. Opps, Now I have.

Anyway, to help you get light hearted again try "Pastor Gas"



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 





Being gay does not preclude a person from being able to procreate, it simply makes them less likely to procreate (and that is only if we revert to the strict biological definition of procreation. Which is about as reasonable in the 21st century as believing that you can fall off the edge of the Earth if you sail to far East or West!).


HUH? So now its primitive and outdated to procreate biologically? Wow. Your mind is straight out of Brave New World.




And I am sorry, but no matter how much Tradition, or East/West spitiuality you fall back on, you're just making the same old tired arguement: MY belief system is older/more popular/more "whatever" than yours and so I must be right and you must be wrong!


I havent made that argument. No where did i make that argument. In fact - the point of this thread was to challenge the myth and propaganda duping people into believing that homosexuality is an irreversible state of being.

However, since this has turned into a moral question.

Morally, as i explained elsewhere (but of course will be uninteresting to an "enlightened" person such as yourself) the ideal - the morality we should live up to - is present in the natural dynamic in creation. Between the feminine and masculine. These two are meant to unite in total equanimity. A man with a man is not a reflection of this spiritual dynamic, but infact goes completely against it. Thus, it is 'immoral' to not follow G-ds will, present throughout the physical creation. Us superior creatures with the ability to reason should use that G-d given reason to do what is right; to follow the creators will.




I did not say that to procreate "biologically" was in any way "outdated".
(Nice try at "Spin", by the way)

Someone obviously wasn't paying attention in Biology class it seems: Or perhps you could explain to us just how one would go about procreating a biological entity (ie., a human) without employing biology?

I was pointing out that there is more than one way to use biology to procreate. In vitro fertilization, surrogacy, and even cloning come immediately to mind, just to name a few of the current, or soon to be current methods available.

Sorry if the reference escaped your cognitive "grasp".

And furthermore, I was pointing out that it is possible to expand the definition of "procreation" to include any scenario which results in the formation a social grouping we could call a "family": Adoption would be an example. An extension of a familial identity onto a next generation, but lacking the "biological" element resulting from the direct sexual congress of the "parents".



And the point of my post was to challenge the myth and propoganda duping people into believing that homosexuality may be a reversable state of being , but that heterosexuality is somehow any less reversable;

or that any moral grounds exist which would justify advocating a change from one state to the other.

You didn't get that concept, either.



And No, this has Not turned into a "moral question".

It never was a moral question, for that would imply that what was at the heart of the question was something that should be changed.

No more than blue eyes or green eyes could be construed to be a "moral question".

No more than hungry or sated can, or could, or should be construed to be a "moral question".


Furthmore, I question entire thesis that what is or isn't, should or shouldn't be considered moral is in fact tied to what appears to be a overly simplistic, one might even say, juvenalistically rudimentary, understanding of what you refer to as the "natural dynamic" in creation.

Your grasp of creation's dynamic is, by your own words, limited to a two-dimensional dichotomy: either/or, moral/immoral, male/female, positive/negative...

Yadda/Yadda.


The Truth, the Fact, the Reality, is that the dynamic you speak of (and, one assumes, seek to serve) is far more than black and white. It is not a nice cozy binary concept. It's messy, with infinite shades of gray and color.

If that is too scary, too ambiguous, well,

Too Bad.


That's what Free Will is all about: We decide. We make it work. There is no Ultimate Judge to oversee our decisions, for if there was an "Ultimate right" and an "Ultimate wrong", an "Ultimate Arbiter" of good and Evil, our decisions, our reality, would be nothing more than a rigged game whose outcome is already determined.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Ok now that I have sat and thought on the matter a bit I must say that the concept you present is in itself understandable when applied to those areas of the self that are controlled by ones desires/impulses. I feel that when the suject was tainted with your own personal opinion it took a whole new form. We are created,IMO,to progress.And in simple terms procreation is a form of progression..but it is limited to the mindset of that speices.To trully progress the mind must evolve as well. the wording within your theory does not lend to progression. It actually goes against the logic you put out. You have staged this other wise enlightning way to look at mankinds ability to change and adapt into a regression of old and un-morale beleifs. That being said I wish you well in your aid to help humanity find its new and higher state of self, but I ask you to take what I have said and apply it to what you have already came up with. I think you will see a true illumination within yourself.Be Blessed.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Ok, besides me finding SO many things wrong with not only the experiment in question, I also disagree with many of the OP’s views (just my opinion mind you, the OP likely will disagree with my opinions as well and they have that right)… I want to point out something taken from Mental Health America

I am going to post the link, mods, please forgive me if this is not allowed. This link states some of the points I make about how homosexuality isn't just like a desire or urge we can change at will.

www.nmha.org...

NMHA is a reputable site for mental health specialists.

Since this discussion started on the sissy boy experiment, where it talks about other subjects of related experiments. This link discusses the sissy boy experiment as well as the John/Joan case. A little bit different than the sissy boy experiment, but relevant none the less due to the psychological impact on the subject.

healthland.time.com...

Before I go on, since religion and science and morality are mixed in here, let me just be up front about where I stand personally. I am a straight, married male who is Christian, and honestly could care less what someone’s sexual orientation is. That being said, I struggle with my belief in my religion and my belief in science quite often, as they tend to conflict with each other. But that really is the crux of the argument here, is it not? Religion plays a large part in this argument, or at least this thread. The OP is stating homosexuality is a desire or urge that can be changed, based on (and again, I may be mistaken here) religious beliefs and personal experiences. Science, which has basis and entails actual physical proof (unless you consider psychology a pseudo science and in that case you should have never mentioned you had taken psych classes), in your opinion, appears to be wrong.

First, homosexuality is much more complicated than someone just making a choice. Many in the mental health field believe people are born with their sexual orientation. In other words, it is believed possible to be born straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual. That being said, some do make the conscious choice to not be straight. In my personal opinion, I think more often then not, those who are straight, gay or lesbian are born that way. I do think bi-sexuality is more of a choice than anything else though.

It’s not all about sex. You don’t see crazed homosexuals running around grabbing everyone’s backside they can (well, there are people that do that regardless of their sexual orientation!). Truth be told, I am sure you know some people who are homosexual and you don’t even know it. Homosexuals are no different then you, me or anyone else. So they find affection, comfort, companionship, security in the arms of someone of the same sex. Does that really bother you THAT bad? And why does it bother you? Because religious texts tell you it is wrong? You do realize most religious texts have changed over the years to reflect what the religion’s agenda is. It is more of a guide to how to live ones life. Much like rule utilitarian theories, if everyone followed the bible for example, than in a Christians eyes, the world would be a perfect (or close to it) place. Now, I disagree with this mentality, but that’s because I view religious texts as helpful guidelines, as well as tools to assist in controlling some peoples attitudes, views and behaviors.

Second, it has been found that many of the so called “cures”, including the sissy boy experiment do not work. Not only do they not work, but they can actually cause more harm to the person in question. I think the sissy boy experiment is a great example of this.

The OP brought religion into play here, than further along mentions the society we live in has an agenda. I would like to point out to the OP that religion as a whole always has an agenda. You’re post has an agenda, and that claim is supported by the fact that you reaffirmed to someone who replied that sexual orientation is desire and can be changed.

Let me ask, and forgive me if I missed this, but why are you so adamantly against homosexuality? I know your cousin is homosexual, but your posts really do tend to lead people to believe you are very much against homosexuality.

I want to add, while the sissy boy experiment was considered a success, ultimately it was a failure. The subject struggled with his own sexuality all of his life, and eventually committed suicide. The experiment was classic use of standard behavior modification practices, many of which we use today to change behaviors in children and adults. If this was a factor of desire, and not something much deeper and most likely born with, this child likely would not have had psychological problems as an adult. They used a rewards system, they used a punishment system, and ultimately the subject felt shame and guilt. Quite honestly, many homosexuals who try to “go straight” feel guilt and shame and lead them to have psychological issues.

You mention you are a psych minor… you should than know that the younger, pre-teen years are the most important in a persons development. What they did to this child, and others like him in these types of experiments, have left some very psychologically wounded people in it’s wake.

Look, to the OP… I can understand your mentality that if one has a strong enough will, they can overcome anything. Believe me, I agree… to an extent. I have overcome obstacles that no one, including my own doctor, believed I could overcome. That being said… you are lumping homosexuality in with… for example eating a box of Nerds candy which I believe you stated in a previous post. It is not that simple. We get it. You believe homosexuality is morally wrong. In my humble opinion, I believe the focus of this post should have been how morally right or wrong the experiment itself was, rather than the morality of homosexuality, but than… there is no real agenda in that.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 




HUH? Im not a christian. Have you even be reading my posts? What do you think is meant by "metaphysical"? The bible is allegory. It is a Metaphysical philosophy cloaked in symbolic narratives.




Im a Bible believer, and you know that. The Torah explicitly says "a male shall not lay with another male". Metaphysically this makes total sense.


Okay, FIRST. You said BIBLE. Not HEBREW Bible. NOT JEWISH Bible. NOT TANAKH.
What exactly do you think MOST people in the world think of when they hear "Bible"?

The fact still stands; you follow Jewish fundamentalism ... "metaphysical" interpretation or not.



And secondly, any person remotely understanding of Judaism understands how incredibly honored woman are by men


Riiiiight.

I provided 3 verses from the "Old Testament" that STILL stand, that OBVIOUSLY place women below men.

"Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'" (Bere# 3:16)

"The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. "(Vayikra 18:8)

"A lovely hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; with her love be thou ravished always." (Proverbs 5:19)

And how about some of these gems?

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'" (I Samuel 15:3)

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock." (Psalms 137:9)

Aww, how sweet! I love that part about the infants and little ones, it's just SOOOO cute.

Please give me your allegory teachings and the "metaphysical" philosophy you see here.
edit on 10-6-2011 by Nurv47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


It's unfortunate that you've allowed your ignorance to affect the way you see your cousin. You claim to love him but you think there is something "wrong" with him that must be overcome and that he is 'challenged' in some way or must overcome who he is in order to succeed in YOUR eyes





IMO, you have a lot of learning to do if this is your definition of 'love'



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

You seem to be deceiving yourself.

"I love my cousin, but ..." - is not love.

"desires CAN be changed ..." - then they are not desires.
Why go to the shop, because you desire ice-cream, and then buy baked beans?

What would you really believe if you never read a book that said something was 'wrong'.
The beauty of the human mind is that it enables you to learn for yourself.
Forget everything you have been taught and discover how your world works

You are not expressing your thoughts, you are just pushing what you have been indoctrinated with
edit on 10-6-2011 by CitizenNum287119327 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Anyways. I have no problem with my cousin. I love him and will love him regardless of his decision towards his homosexual impulses. That being said, i do not - for religious reasons - approve of his homosexuality. I dont think its right that hes in a relationship with a man, and i especially disapprove of anal sex/oral sex etc.



Mate, you need to quit obsessing about what happens in the bedroom over at his place. Lots of guys out there use the backdoor in their heterosexual exclusive bed. So far you're coming across as naive and contradicting yourself by stating 'I have no problem with my cousin' but your entire post is about the concept of him not conforming to your expectations or your religious dogma and so you are tolerating him. Well I reckon he must, in his own way be tolerating your perspective too. You would find yourself less troubled if you didn't judge him by your ideals but rather accepted him as an individual who is free to express his sexuality through his senses rather than yours




I'll get to my reasoning for this later, but for now, i will endeavor to explain something completely known and understood to mystics/philosophers and those acquainted with the subject of metaphysics, which is: Feelings are not permanant - and this includes the lower, raw, foundation feeling of ones sexual predilection.


Sexual attraction is a multi dimensional experience. I doubt very much that it is completely known as there are philosophers who are at odds with your chosen perspective on this topic.



In Kabbalistic thought, the sephira (archetype) representing the sexual drive is Yesod - which literally means "foundation". In other words, all emotional energy is centered in ones sexuality or "libido" (an appropriate idea).


Flawed logic... why? Well often a woman or a man will experience total lack of any sexual drive yet will continue to function within all the emotional parameters expected apart from sexual appetite. Sexual energy/libido is driven by primarily testosterone. Levels of this hormone can be synthetically manipulated to increase or decrease sex drive which can effect emotions depending on the individual, but to make grand sweeping claims that sexuality or libido drive effects everyone the same way is very short-sighted. Often a person becomes cerebral in reasoning rather than sexual but still their attraction remains unchanged as their brain has been wired from conception by hormone influence. Your assumptions do not even take into consideration people out there who have a variation of either the XX or XY chromosomes... eg: XXY individuals. What you are expecting is that people who are different to you must still live by your socially constructed ideals based on your choice of religious dogma so that you feel comfortable around them and you argue that you have that right to justify your condescending opinion of spiritual elitism over your cousin. That's a toxic environment, for anyone who is different to you to have to function in.



Now, im in no way saying that everyone who attempts to correct or align their consciousness - which is dominantly feminine(in the case of a male)- with their physical body - which is masculine - will always suceed. Their might be cases where it might not ever happen. But nonetheless, fundamentally speaking, one CAN change his desires - for anything, it just takes an understanding of the nature of the psyche.

So if you like the smell of something but someone else doesn't, would it be right for them to expect you to change your feelings about the scent, as its just a simple matter of understanding the scent is repulsive to them? Are you aware that the quantum aspect of scent and sexually attraction is vital to who you are attracted to? Gay guys tend not to be attracted to the scent of females nor are lesbians generally attracted to the smell of men. You really do oversimplify your argument based on moral judgements and not the reality of the vast biological components that are effecting emotions/feelings of each person as a complex individual. We are not all the same.



From what i have learned about myself, if one wants to overcome something deemed 'negative', he/she has to first accept it. He has to accept that if it manifests, or comes, he must not be afraid of it. Thus, acceptance is how one overcomes the original fear. If one fears that which he doesnt want, he will only draw it toward him. This is a fundamental fact of psychology. With this explained, for one to overcome his sexual impulses, he has to first accept that this is how he currently feels. If the feelings manifest, he must accept that they exist - not permanantly - but at that particular moment in time
.
Congratulations... You have learned something about yourself within the parameters of your senses, beliefs/thoughts and actions/experiences. Now allow others to learn also within the threefold manifestation of their existence without your judgements.


Whats also needed is a bit of imagination. You have to desire the opposite - and the most important thing in stressing this point is: DO NOT FEAR OR ASSUME YOU ARE UNABLE TO BE ATTRACTED TO THE OTHER SEX. Homosexuals have from the earliest age, or time when theyve discovered that their sexual impulses were wrong, or unnatural, that they are unable to feel an attraction to the other sex. In other words, there is a deep emotional complex attached to their sexual feelings. The inability to arouse the desire to them is a depressing and painful feeling; and because this is so, it prevents them from ever cultivating such feelings. How then do you overcome this conundrum? In my experience, to accept that you might not always succeed. And - that you HAVE THE ABILITY - FUNDAMENTALLY SPEAKING - to change your desires. Thus, the great cure lies in BELIEF - and only through belief can the seemingly impossible be achieved.

Imagination? Let's imagine that offensive smell is attractive because you have been lead to think it was wrong not to. Homosexuals haven't discovered that their sexual impulses are wrong, they have been taught through the use of out dated religious dogma written by lost nomads in the desert who were getting directions from a burning bush. Given the chance to observe what happens in nature it would be understood that all forms of sexuality. hermaphroditism, transsexualism, bisexuality and homosexuality are natural states of existence on this planet. It is by your judgement and many like you, that your cousins sexuality is wrong. It's also your responsibility not to inflict your standards on him in the hope he feels guilty for it. Would you be happy if it was your attitude that had him feeling guilty about his sexuality to the point of emotional hopelessness within? Often the outcome is not a positive one. Can you overcome your conundrum of non acceptance?


Freud said all men/women are bi-sexual. I think this statement is misleading - as if all people naturally feel an equal attraction to both sexes. I would change this and say: All people can potentially become sexually aroused by ANYTHING. Men, women or animals and all fetishes in between. ALL Things any wild imagination can conjure up, can potentially serve as a point of attraction. The key is to become attuned to a particular spirit or energy or in jungian terms, 'archetype' which lies beyond the subjects current frame of awarness. This is where imagination and visualization comes into play.

Lets play 'let's pretend'? What you're aiming for here is a spiritual position of who we are, rather than a biological expression of who we are based on sexual attraction... which comes back to what you're obsessing about in comparison to accepting the differences in others. The two concepts of sexual expression and spiritual expression are not limited by either until there is a learnt 'guilt' of, not operating within societies (your judgements) constructs of sexual identity. That man made, religiously framed sexual expression/oppression rather than that which occurs naturally within nature or life on this planet. There is nothing natural about a life of repressed sexuality yet that is accepted as part of the existence of the hierarchical advocates of the bible, your spiritual teachers.



Now, with all this explained. Why then is it so difficult for so many gays and lesbians to overcome their feelings? What is standing in their way - between how they feel, and how they want to feel?

You with tyrannical ideas and an insane wish to impose guilt upon anyone who you feel uncomfortable with. I'd say above all else they wish to feel happy. That will come in an environment of acceptance rather than intolerance or you just tolerating. What I see there is you are fed up with your own limits of tolerance and want to impose your state of happiness on another. See the problem yet?


Enter into the equation: the social consciousness. We are all conditioned by our environment whether we like it or not. How the 'environment' thinks, we will also think, or at the very least be influenced by its dynamics of thought. If my environment says homosexuality is natural, and that "fundamentally", ones sexual feelings are "hardwired" into their constitution, they will be confronted by an ENORMOUS energy and thus a belief that how they feel is natural - but at the same time, for religious reasons, or social reasons, or moral reasons, they cannot come to proper terms with it.

Yes... you'll never give a homosexual creature the guilt's based on your religious, moral or social reasons as these are learnt, contrived religious dogma with the agenda of imposing control over sexual and spiritual expression. Neither will you be able to guilt trip a person who stands beyond your dogma and expectations of spiritual and emotional manipulations because they have found their happiness within rather than from external doctrines and socially constructed impositions. They have placed themselves in an environment of acceptance.


This society we live in has an agenda. And this agenda lies in Liberalism. The word Liberal (and i like to mention this) comes from the latin word "liber", who was the Roman Dionysus. Thus, the ideal of being 'liberal', and accepting of all things, is really a return to the worship of Liber/Dionysus/Bacchus. This is all it is, and that is precisely why philologists resurrected this word to signify the Hellenistic/pagan prerogative. Liber/Dionysus is beyond all bounds. Being the god of wine - he is inherently unstable, unbalanced, in a "stupor" so to speak. He can not appreciate "one thing from another" - as alcohol causes one to feel. The god of wine destroys all inhibition, and it is this inhibition which the social architects - pagans - seek to purge from society.

Geez !... You follow around your own agenda and create a set of parameters that border on ridiculous and incredible. All you've done here is showed a pathway to your limited thought processes. Seriously you'll cherry pick anything that supports your belief rather than accepting that others are different to you and can live a happy existence. Your thinking and beliefs are actually toxic to the environment that your cousin lives in. I feel sorry for the guy. The Taliban also justify their beliefs by ridicule and use ancient documents when inflicting their beliefs and politics upon others too. Welcome to their club, you're in a similar queue.



So why cant homosexuals overcome their feelings? Because the beliefs of others creates in them doubts. The 'god' society - a collective energy/psychological template', has become the major obstacle to their understanding that their feelings can be overcome. But because they are so encompassed by doubters - and Gay pride movements, and others who think the complete opposite, they cannot help but ponder that how they feel might be permanent. That what others say is true; it cannot be changed.

Again you assume a position of authority on happiness based on your moral judgements and condemn any other thought/belief other than your own. You would make a great dictator, apparently it only takes one defeat over another to realise this... you do it by proxy through the confidence of a religious agenda that has annihilated alternative lifestyles, spiritual beliefs and religions down through the ages.


This is why in the CNN promo which seeks to TERRIFY gays and us - non gays - into accepting the reality the conditioners want us to accept - that homosexuality CANNOT be reversed. That to think otherwise is evil, and indeed, judging by the tone of this documentary, criminal, presents several examples of men who grew up gay, went through therapy to reverse their feelings, only to kill themselves in the end. This is a form of moral terrorism.

The IRONY !!!
Well actually its probably not a case of talking directly to you but rather communicating to people who are trying to come to terms with their sexuality before they lose themselves in the hatred and bigotry that surrounds them. Often a gay person feels they are the only person in the world that has confronted their sexuality and its a lonely dark road. You may see the documentary as opening 'Pandora's Box' so to speak but for a gay person it will be seen as 'Hope' coming forth.




Im not going to judge or moralize to my cousin. I dont think he is philosophical, or reasonable enough to not be offended by my opinions, and because i love him, and respect him, i dont want to cause him confusion, anxiety or jeapordize our relationship. I believe G-d puts us in our situations for a reason. If youre born gay - its not to remain gay - but to overcome the challenge. If due to his current circumstances i feel hes not in a position to respond ammenably to my help, then i have no choice but to tolerate this.

It's ok, you have your very own short comings that you are unaware of and have no guilt about. I believe your god said it was not your position to judge another but to treat them as you would have them treat you in return. A big ask on your part apparently. I'm sure your cousin doesn't obsess over your sexual activity and is accepting of who you are without expecting you to follow his ideals about happiness. Just accept we are all different. At best you are a pacifist homophobic but still not offering a conducive environment for your cousin to be in. I don't suppose you consider 'bigotry' to be one of those challenges by any chance?
edit on 11-6-2011 by LexiconV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
1. He's failed to quote scripture and verse, or even explain his misconstrued beliefs about the Bible and 'masculine' and 'feminine' energies.

2. He still hasn't showed us who all of these 'metaphysicians, philosophers, and mystics' are who agree with his way of thinking.

3. It's pointless in trying to persuade him, considering his logic is deeply flawed, his beliefs are without logical (or even religious) backup.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally

Morally, as i explained elsewhere (but of course will be uninteresting to an "enlightened" person such as yourself) the ideal - the morality we should live up to - is present in the natural dynamic in creation. Between the feminine and masculine. These two are meant to unite in total equanimity. A man with a man is not a reflection of this spiritual dynamic, but infact goes completely against it. Thus, it is 'immoral' to not follow G-ds will, present throughout the physical creation. Us superior creatures with the ability to reason should use that G-d given reason to do what is right; to follow the creators will.



Here is the crux of your conundrum... you appear to be unenlightened regarding gender dysphoria whereby the entity/spirit within is at odds to the biology/body... which the chromosomes coded at conception yet the hormonal influences were diametrical opposed throughout the term of the pregnancy.
Now what happens as a result is a contradiction in terms of the spiritual (yin- yang) energy of the mind/brain to the body that energy is held/trapped in. There is now the polar energy of the feminine (Yin) functioning in the opposite gender of a male body (Yang).
So your naive ideas about spirituality need to be broadened to understand the truth of spirit regarding male and female energy. Spirit is Spirit... Flesh is Flesh. Spirit inhabits Flesh but does not create Flesh. Humans create Flesh and the hormones create the sliding scale of male and female energies held within.
I believe it is written in your Bible "Your body is the house of your lord". Therefore that which is housed within the flesh is g-d spirit/energy regardless of the size/shape/colour/gender of the container/house/body.



edit on 11-6-2011 by LexiconV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
So you basically don't like him being gay because of your Religious beliefs???

Ok then, well since I don't like children being abused, let's arrest all the Priests that molest kids, and throw em in with the General Population. Let's see how long they last without any protection, and the other prisoners find out what they are in for.

And while we are at it, let's arrest those whose Religion permits them to marry kids between the ages of 11-17. Since it's a form of Paedophilia, I don't give a # what your religion says. Tough luck buddy!

And while we're at it, let's basically round up EVERYONE that practices Religion. Considering they are part of a cult, which isn't "normal" by any means of the word, we may as well put them in prison, or at least a Psychiatric Ward, considering most of them believe in a magical fairy that sent his son, who was really himself, down to Earth, just so he could get killed.

See buddy, just because you believe "your" way is right, doesn't mean jack # at the end of the day. It's these stupid, antiquated ideas that cause so many problems in the world today.

If everyone just accepted everyone else on the basis of whether they are a decent, caring, loving person, there wouldn't be so much turmoil going on around the world these days. But I doubt that will happen any time soon, because people live with closed minds.




top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join