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.

 

Humans have been doing it every which way FOREVER. Why are so many still not over it?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
First let me say IMO a homophobic is someone who goes our of their way to not like gay people, not straight people who don’t want to watch “whiskers bumping” lol

Let’s pretend it’s the beginning of time here on earth for us as humans. Just our bodies, and Earth. What things would we naturally desire for our bodies, other than food, water, and air? Sex is the first thing that comes to my mind.

Sexual arousal comes with the body. I find it strange that so many people care what turns on this arousal for other people. Some think that people who go out of their way to bash homosexuals might have some unresolved, confused, or suppressed homosexual feelings, and I tend to agree. And here are the arguments to follow that thought….That’s like saying….racists want to be another race, atheists secretly want to be Christians, neo-Nazis are all secretly Jews. These arguments just don’t make any sense to me.

Racial separation, religion, politics, and so on, were all developed over time. They aren’t uncontrollable biological desires. People have been doing it from day one…straight, gay, in pairs, ect. It’s so sad, you would think with sex being around as long as it has, we would be past this foolishness by now….

On another note: I wish we had a big “thread closed” notice on the first page of closed threads. Sorry, didn’t want to waste my text



edit on 4-9-2011 by MidnightSunshine because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
People fear that which is different. A majority of the people don't like to think for themselves they like being told what to think. This is why religion is so popular.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
two gays not being able to naturally produce a child is enough proof for me that being gay is unnatural
its natures way that man and woman should be together,not two men or two women together it just dosent work.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by irishskeptic
 


Nature tends to disagree with what you think is natural.

Namaste.
edit on 4-9-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by irishskeptic
 


Yes, i know that. I understand two men can't make a baby, what I don't understand is why people care? It not being "natural" is no excuse. We ALL do things that aren't narural everyday...drive cars, fly planes, take medicine.... Dudes have been loven dudes since the day dudes got here, it's never going away. I feel bad for the people who waste energy hating and preaching about it...seems to me that energy should be used on something important.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Just to comment, it's fine to be against something. That is normal. But homophobic individuals take it too far. The level of anger etc psychologically illustrates an unresolved conflict. It is the same as the other examples you mentioned, but imo where you are going wrong is not separating the people who are simply against a certain thing, with the people who are angrily or violently, extravagantly against an idea or practice...Because that is not normal, and like I said, reveals something about the person in question.

Of course, the individual is not aware of the conflict the majority of the time, and the subconscious mind does a great job compromising when it finds conflicts that are beneath the surface of the conscious mind. From what psychology has taught me, many everyday actions and responses exhibited by people are a direct result of their subconscious feelings, conflicts, desires, etc...For instance, someone may not know they are racist. They wouldn't think they were consciously, but underneath the surface they are.

This is what causes psychological complexes...unresolved conflicts. These complexes can even trigger psychosomatic occurrences. The mind is a powerful thing.

To respond to your original idea, I agree that people should simply get over it, but for many to do so they would need to do some deep, honest soul-searching, as well as see a psychiatrist, who will know how to identify biases and coax the information from the individual that will eventually lead to a eureka moment, which most people generally reject because they don't consciously agree with their subconscious....*breath*

Did that make any sense at all? I haven't been to sleep and it is 7 in the morning, lol.


edit on 9/4/11 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 


Not saying anything but the author of the source of the Wikipedia article....


Although gay himself, Bagemihl says he did not write his landmark book (which he spent nine years researching) simply because of his own sexual identity but rather because "the implications for humans are enormous.


No agenda there then.


edit on 4/9/2011 by PuterMan because: To add information link



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by irishskeptic
two gays not being able to naturally produce a child is enough proof for me that being gay is unnatural
its natures way that man and woman should be together,not two men or two women together it just dosent work.


That would only be true if it took a lifetime to reproduce and reproductive activity was only for reproduction. But in fact, it only takes one lucky shot and sex is used for pleasure as well as reproduction.

That leaves years and years for people to do what they will with their reproductive organs.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by irishskeptic
two gays not being able to naturally produce a child is enough proof for me that being gay is unnatural


Using this logic, I guess it follows that two heterosexuals who are not able to naturally produce a child (which is the case with MANY couples) means that being straight is also unnatural, then, Right?


And as boncho pointed out. Sex isn't just for reproduction. It's also for pleasure, like having a beer or eating a nice dinner or watching a movie. So, unless you only have sex when you're actively trying to reproduce, your assertion is meaningless.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
i think that part of the problem thinking that those virulent homophobes are perhaps indeed closeted homosexuals is due in part at least to politics.
today's politics are not about unity, they are about division and demonizing the others that are different.
some closeted homosexuals saw that they could gather power and influence through association with groups that are sometimes violent to homosexuals, so they hid their true nature. (mistake)
Once the hypocrisy is exposed as has happened many times through the media or people with hateful agendas, it has become a natural assumption (albeit a wrong one) that those most virulent in their opposition to homosexuality are perhaps homosexuals themselves.

so you want to point a finger at someone, look no farther than you politicians guided by power greed and lies.

nature abounds with homosexuality. IT IS NATURAL and normal, in all species.
as the OP said, cars are not natural, inventions of men, so to is morality, and yes all other man made inventions such as...the bible.
unnatural tools of division.

the term divide and conquer comes to mind
edit on 4-9-2011 by CaDreamer because: typos



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Oh trust me, I'm over it.

I don't care what folks do, but I can certainly live without the flaunting, over-hyped feminine attitudes from gay guys, the butch girls who THINK they're tough, the "Gay Pride" parades and the Chuck & Larry movies.


Consider this: I don't make out with my girlfriend in public, I don't hype "straight pride", and I don't need to fight for my right to screw, because what I do is done behind closed doors.

Consider this: If everyone were gay we'd all be test-tube babies!

Ok, you're gay...
Are YOU over it?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy


Oh trust me, I'm over it.

I don't care what folks do, but I can certainly live without the flaunting, over-hyped feminine attitudes from gay guys, the butch girls who THINK they're tough, the "Gay Pride" parades and the Chuck & Larry movies.


Consider this: I don't make out with my girlfriend in public, I don't hype "straight pride", and I don't need to fight for my right to screw, because what I do is done behind closed doors.

Consider this: If everyone were gay we'd all be test-tube babies!

Ok, you're gay...
Are YOU over it?

a man and a woman walks down the street holding hands, typical banter back and forth, a loving happy couple. Society rejoices, yes even homosexuals find it pleasing to see others in love.
Change that to two men or two women. the couple is treated badly, often violently for doing EXACTLY what the straight couple does, walking down the street hand in hand enjoying each others company.
i would say that homosexuals will "get over being gay" when society gets over their fear and derision, over two people in love doing what two people in love do.
society has made this a divisive issue, not homosexuals. they only want what everyone else has, the ability to walk down the street in love, and be happy, not fearful for their lives due to ignorance and hatred.

oh and despite what you think, homosexuals aren't trying to "convert the world" they are only seeking acceptance, only seeking tolerance. is that really too much to ask?
edit on 4-9-2011 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 


Not saying anything but the author of the source of the Wikipedia article....


Although gay himself, Bagemihl says he did not write his landmark book (which he spent nine years researching) simply because of his own sexual identity but rather because "the implications for humans are enormous.


No agenda there then.


The implications for humans *are* enormous. It is only through the willful ignorance of what is going on around us that we can sustain our hate and discrimination for people who choose to express their love for their follow (wo)man differently than some accept.

Martin Luther King Jr. had an agenda. Ghandi had an agenda. Agendas are neutral... they are positive if they seek to benefit and lift up, they are negative if they seek to repress. It's that simple.

Namaste.
edit on 4-9-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by irishskeptic
two gays not being able to naturally produce a child is enough proof for me that being gay is unnatural
its natures way that man and woman should be together,not two men or two women together it just dosent work.


Do you masturbate?

Namaste



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightSunshine
 
Hi Midnight - I have a few issues with your reasoning here:


Sexual arousal comes with the body. I find it strange that so many people care what turns on this arousal for other people. Some think that people who go out of their way to bash homosexuals might have some unresolved, confused, or suppressed homosexual feelings, and I tend to agree. And here are the arguments to follow that thought….That’s like saying….racists want to be another race, atheists secretly want to be Christians, neo-Nazis are all secretly Jews. These arguments just don’t make any sense to me.

Not sure about the last bit as seems a bit contradictory, but as far as sexual arousal coming from the body and the implication that homosexuality (and by extension, all other sexual attractions) are there for natural and not of issue seems to fall apart when applied to necrophilia, pedophilia, BSDM, bestiality, and an entire range of other related sexual issues.

Additionally, the argument from nature is difficult to get behind as well (especially from a christian perpective, such as mine, admittedly - as we are supposed to be in the world, but not of the world) as mankind as historically made a point of emphasizing how separate, distinct, and above/beyond the animal world we are; man is civilized, able to reason and think, and as such should not give into such animalistic behaviours (historical excuses for us considering ourselves superior to animals, etc. - most of which completely fall apart with sincere appraisal of a whole range of human activities...), so appealing to occurrences of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom also doesn't do much to help here.

However, I must agree with your main thrust here - in short, and I know we'll effectively never get there on the whole, sadly - we might never know, and as long as it doesn't impact you directly there's not really any reason to get wound up about it one way or the other as we ARE NOT to be the judges of all those around us - and I *can* argue that from a biblical basis if any believers choose to take issue with this.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Just to comment, it's fine to be against something. That is normal. But homophobic individuals take it too far. The level of anger etc psychologically illustrates an unresolved conflict. It is the same as the other examples you mentioned, but imo where you are going wrong is not separating the people who are simply against a certain thing, with the people who are angrily or violently, extravagantly against an idea or practice...Because that is not normal, and like I said, reveals something about the person in question.

Of course, the individual is not aware of the conflict the majority of the time, and the subconscious mind does a great job compromising when it finds conflicts that are beneath the surface of the conscious mind. From what psychology has taught me, many everyday actions and responses exhibited by people are a direct result of their subconscious feelings, conflicts, desires, etc...For instance, someone may not know they are racist. They wouldn't think they were consciously, but underneath the surface they are.

This is what causes psychological complexes...unresolved conflicts. These complexes can even trigger psychosomatic occurrences. The mind is a powerful thing.

To respond to your original idea, I agree that people should simply get over it, but for many to do so they would need to do some deep, honest soul-searching, as well as see a psychiatrist, who will know how to identify biases and coax the information from the individual that will eventually lead to a eureka moment, which most people generally reject because they don't consciously agree with their subconscious....*breath*

Did that make any sense at all? I haven't been to sleep and it is 7 in the morning, lol.


edit on 9/4/11 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)


Yes
It made perfect sense to me. But the homophobes I was referring to are not the small group of angry, violent hate crime committers. Those people are obliviously sick, and deeply conflicted for some reason or another. To me that group of people almost seem more understandable than the MUCH larger group of verbal haters and preachers who go out of their way to spread THEIR idea of what’s normal, natural, or acceptable.

This group has had from the beginning of time to get used to the idea that a large portion of the human population, were, are, and will always be gay….Again, when will we just get over it?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
Additionally, the argument from nature is difficult to get behind as well (especially from a christian perpective, such as mine, admittedly - as we are supposed to be in the world, but not of the world) as mankind as historically made a point of emphasizing how separate, distinct, and above/beyond the animal world we are; man is civilized, able to reason and think, and as such should not give into such animalistic behaviours (historical excuses for us considering ourselves superior to animals, etc. - most of which completely fall apart with sincere appraisal of a whole range of human activities...), so appealing to occurrences of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom also doesn't do much to help here.


Where do we define the boundary between what is simply natural... vs what is natural for humans vs what is natural for animals? We poop. We pee. We puke. We birth. We die. We get infections. We feel. We care for each other and we fight each other (even loving fights for justice or growth). The argument provided was that since it can't result in procreation... it's not natural. Nature clearly shows it's ok with sex that doesn't result in procreation.

I can understand the argument that our aim is to continue to rise above "animalistic" behavior. However... let's take this a step further. Where do we define the "limits" of what is acceptable physical and intimate contact between two people of the same sex? Holding hands? Kissing? What type of kissing? Sitting in laps? Hugging? Being naked on a beach? Cuddling? Cuddling naked? Massage? Naked massage? Masturbation in the same room at the same time? Masturbating each other? Where... who... why does the line get defined?

I can find a very clear and easy to define line that DOES separate us from the animals... and that is to grow the understanding and support for our fellow people... whatever our differences. THIS is what separates us from animals (and even cats and dogs show us that *that* is a natural process as well and not exclusive to us).

This lower opinion of animals... as well as this assumption that there is EVER something "wrong" with bodies or intimate contact of any kind that is done in a mutually acceptable and desired manner... is the root of the pain we inflict on each other. Animals lick each other's butts too. Some humans enjoy this as well... is it ok if it's straight people doing it but not gay? Is it not ok for *anyone* to do it? Why?

The arbitrary lines are the problems, not the people or the behavior.

Harmful sexual behavior is harmful whether it comes from a straight, gay, bi, or asexual. Loving sexual behavior is loving in the same way.

Namaste.
edit on 4-9-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: Changed you to we since we're all in this boat together.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy


Oh trust me, I'm over it.

I don't care what folks do, but I can certainly live without the flaunting, over-hyped feminine attitudes from gay guys, the butch girls who THINK they're tough, the "Gay Pride" parades and the Chuck & Larry movies.


Consider this: I don't make out with my girlfriend in public, I don't hype "straight pride", and I don't need to fight for my right to screw, because what I do is done behind closed doors.

Consider this: If everyone were gay we'd all be test-tube babies!

Ok, you're gay...
Are YOU over it?





Yea some of the flaming feminine gay men can be annoying, but they are just people. Some of the men like that that I have known turned out to be really good hearted people not to mention funny and interesting … I think you just have to be comfortable enough with you own sexuality to not be able to not be bothered by someone else’s sexuality that you feel is reflected in their personality long enough to get to know a person.

Butch girls who think they are tough? LOL What’s wrong with a woman feeling strong, a lot of us are ya know…even when we wear skirts and heels : ) Women ARE tough , gay or not.

The gay pride parades I can do without too, so I wouldn’t attend one unless a good friend asked me to go for some moral supportive reason. I don’t think gay people have anything more to be proud of than straight people, but I couldn’t care less if they want to get together parade…I just don’t go. Seems strange to me to be “sick” of them. Maybe you live in a different type of city than I do. I’m in Pittsburgh, and I bet we have Gay parades, I just don’t know about it.

I don’t make out with my husband in public either. Again must be a different environment you are experiencing because, here, I don’t see it. I always see straight people inappropriately slobbering all over each other in public. I ride the bus, I go downtown, I spend an awful lot of time in public, and I just have NEVER seen it. And I know I would remember seeing 2 dudes making out in public. I have seen gay guys holding hands, walking arm and arm, picnicking or whatever but no actual making out. Maybe you should move to Pittsburgh? It’s a really great city!!!

Oh and don’t worry everyone will never turn gay, so the population will live on!!!



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Here is my take on this.

a) I am not a homophobe, the opposite actually with some friends lesbians or gays.

But HERE is the problem i have with this:

The media wants us make believe that being gay/lesbian is "normal"..and why i personally don't CARE or don't see it as an issue if someone is gay - i have a problem with the media trying to paint a picture that a HUGE percentage of people is gay/lesbian and that its so incredible "normal".

(If you watch any of the crap TV "reality" shows, you can bet there is a gay person placed in just "to spice it up" etc...and there is undoubtedly many gay people in areas like fashion/design etc..)

But: I personally don't buy this! I personally think that gays/lesbians make a VERY small percentage of the population and the huge majority of people is heterosexual. Period. Making us BELIEVE that anywhere are gays/lesbians is something which personally annoys me.

Just a rough guess....maybe 1 in 50 humans might be gay (not counting the "gay because it's hip" people, yes, they exist!)...but are over-represented in the media which is in no relation to their actual number.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
Just a rough guess....maybe 1 in 50 humans might be gay (not counting the "gay because it's hip" people, yes, they exist!)...but are over-represented in the media which is in no relation to their actual number.


How can you guess the actual number if all reports indicate that roughly 1 in 10, not 1 in 50, are gay? Where does your info come from? Most expert estimates say that in the US., the homosexual population is about 10%.

Still, whether it's 2% or 49%, the fact that they are a minority doesn't necessarily mean they're not 'normal' (whatever that means)... In fact, what does that mean? If you mean that most people are not gay, then thanks for that news flash. I think we already knew that. If you mean that something is 'wrong' with being gay, and their minority makes them 'abnormal', then you're going to have to back that up with something more than opinion.

Because being gay is absolutely normal. It has been happening ever since we've been recording history. Gay people may only be 10% of the population, but 15% of the adult population in the US are Baptists. Does that mean they're not 'normal'?

Source

What bothers you about the media telling you that being gay is normal? It IS.
For once, they report the truth! But you have the freedom to not listen to them.

edit on 9/4/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join