Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Let's clear up the ignorance about homosexuality - I hope to never hear these arguments again

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerryznv

Conditioned to be attracted to...not married to.



So, if a gay man wants to marry his partner, that's still just behavioral conditioning? And even if it is, is that such a bad thing?




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I find this conditioning discussion to be a completely different discussion.

And not related to homosexuality at all.


Annee, I think he's trying to say that homosexuality is nothing but a fetish -- that homosexuals aren't capable of love beyond sex, like heterosexuals are -- because homosexuals are mentally and emotionally "messed up". Personally, I think that's rubbish. Regardless of how homosexuals came to be that way, they are capable of long-term relationships. Not all of them have long-term relationships, but many do.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by jerryznv

Conditioned to be attracted to...not married to.



So, if a gay man wants to marry his partner, that's still just behavioral conditioning? And even if it is, is that such a bad thing?


I never said anything close to that...where are you getting that from?

I was simply pointing out that classic conditioning can make a person attracted to a door knob!

I didn't say one single word about a gay man, a homosexual, or anything of the sort.

The post I responded to said "attracted to"...it did not say "married to"...I think you were the one that brought up the marring part.

Please try and understand I do not have a side on this issue...and my only reason for responding at all was because you asked for "proof" that a person could be conditioned to be attracted to a door knob...I provided that proof...and nothing more.

It is my opinion if a gay man wants to marry his partner...it is because he loves that person and wants to spend the rest of his life with that person...I don't think conditioning has a damn thing to do with it!

So please try not to take my statements out of context...or add to them...I think they are pretty self explanatory and easily enough understood.

Thanks in advance!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


That's interesting . . . and oddly uninformed.

Conditioning influences ALL SEXUALITY

including homosexuality.

That's inescapable in the literature.

What do you suppose

accounts for the fact that

some heterosexuals

are very much attracted almost exclusively to obsessed with

big boobs

others to long necks

others to a particular shape of butt.

others to a particular shape of ears.

others to long hair.

others to red hair or blond hair or black hair or brown hair

dainty feet

large feet

painted toenails

unpainted toenails

long fingernails, short fingernails

vaginal sex face to face

vaginal sex otherwise

with vibrators; without vibrators

in the dark/in bright light

under the covers/ on top of the covers

with a particular perfume/ without any perfume

??????

And . . . similarly . . .

some homosexuals are very attracted to . . . to obsessed with . . .

hairy men
men with extra long organs
circumcised men
uncircumcised men
men with big testicles
men with beards
bald and nearly hairless men
tall men
short men
men with particularly shaped rears
men with long noses
oral sex
anal sex
mutual masturbation
with vibrators/without vibrators
with music/without music
in the dark/ in bright light
. . .

Those are ALL conditioned attractions . . . and reflexes.

After sufficient conditioined association with successful orgasm, usually just an image or a thought or a smell can trigger an arousal.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jerryznv
 


Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were in league with Bo Xian.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by jerryznv
 


Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were in league with Bo Xian.



Nope not at all...I am an independent free thinker...and not in 'league" with anyone!

No worries though...sorry to be rash...it just upset me a bit...I'm over it now!

For the record...I have no idea what makes a person homosexual or strait...tons of theories...but nothing I feel confident enough to share!

To me it doesn't matter...if your gay or strait...and what makes a person either or makes no difference to me either...a human being is a human being...and they will always be treated that way by this poster!




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 




I think he's trying to say that homosexuality is nothing but a fetish




Y'all really aren't succeeding very well at

--mind reading;
--putting your words accurately in my fingers.

I'm not per se saying that homosexuality is 'merely' a fetish. I suppose it's conceivable. Haven't really thought about it in those terms. In my observations, at least initially, I do believe it's a fairly narrow attraction to a limited set of conditioned stimuli. imho, most homosexuals I've known have been more exclusively attracted to a narrower range of males--and a narrower range of features and activities of males--initially in their homosexual path--than most heterosexuals are in their heterosexual path. I just realized that thinking through my response to your assertion. Thanks.

Certainly there are exceptions.



-- that homosexuals aren't capable of love beyond sex,


NOPE. Not saying that per se. Probably a case COULD be made for that, in many individual cases, but that's not what I'm saying. A LOT of homosexual sex seems to be rather self-centered extending somewhat to--you scratch my itch and I'll scratch yours in more of an emotionally detached way than many heterosexuals manage.

However, many heterosexuals are far too detached in the sexual pseudo-dance, these days, too.

IT'S VERY FASCINATING you seem to be . . . quite . . . against, if not hostile to any hint of my stereotyping anything about homosexuality.

HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT YOU FEEL QUITE FREE TO STEREOTYPE ME AND MY RESPONSES ON THIS THREAD AT THE DROP OF A HAT OVER VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE.

Just add your fantasies about what I write and you're stereotyping is off and running. Fascinating.

Interesting contradiction. I wonder if you feel any cognitive dissonance about that.



like heterosexuals are -- because homosexuals are mentally and emotionally "messed up".


Actually, there's such an epidemic of REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER these days, I don't know many heterosexuals or homosexuals who aren't mentally and emotionally somewhat 'messed up.'

And, such factors do limit and distort the capacity to selflessly love anyone--including another sexual partner. I don't necessarily see that as authomatically having much to do with sexual orientation.

I suppose a case could be made in MANY INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES for homosexuals as a class of people having MORE mental/emotional struggles of a more intense nature than most heterosexuals . . . but these days . . . everyone seems to almost be off the scale.

Homosexuals do tend to have more incidence per 100 of depression and of suicide, IIRC. And feeling thrilled and part of the 'approved homosexual community' even in a geographically homosexual area does not seem to relieve such problems much at all.



Personally, . . . Regardless of how homosexuals came to be that way, they are capable of long-term relationships. Not all of them have long-term relationships, but many do.


The research statistics indicate otherwise. Sure there is a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF EXCEPTIONS--IIRC, on the order of 1 or 2% of homosexuals.

The vast bulk of the relationships are NOT long term. They last on average about 2 years, if that. And the sexual partnering--even in homosexual marriages are NOT monogomous in MOST cases.

It's an interesting fantasy you have. It does NOT match reality.

I don't know if you are truly interested in THE FACTS, or not. But those are THE FACTS.
.
.



edit on 12/1/2012 by BO XIAN because: spelling



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jerryznv
 





I never said anything close to that...where are you getting that from?

I was simply pointing out that classic conditioning can make a person attracted to a door knob!

I didn't say one single word about a gay man, a homosexual, or anything of the sort.

The post I responded to said "attracted to"...it did not say "married to"...I think you were the one that brought up the marring part.

Please try and understand I do not have a side on this issue...and my only reason for responding at all was because you asked for "proof" that a person could be conditioned to be attracted to a door knob...I provided that proof...and nothing more.

It is my opinion if a gay man wants to marry his partner...it is because he loves that person and wants to spend the rest of his life with that person...I don't think conditioning has a damn thing to do with it!

So please try not to take my statements out of context...or add to them...I think they are pretty self explanatory and easily enough understood.


THANKS.

That's exactly how I took your words--and your goal--as far as they went. LOL.

But then my fantasizer is not running off with my perceptions nor my logic.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Annee
I find this conditioning discussion to be a completely different discussion.

And not related to homosexuality at all.


Annee, I think he's trying to say that homosexuality is nothing but a fetish -- that homosexuals aren't capable of love beyond sex, like heterosexuals are -- because homosexuals are mentally and emotionally "messed up". Personally, I think that's rubbish. Regardless of how homosexuals came to be that way, they are capable of long-term relationships. Not all of them have long-term relationships, but many do.


I think its rubbish too. Its how their "soup" was mixed - that's all. I do accept there are "degrees of gay" - - meaning similar to heteros - - macho man - athlete - nerd - sensitive - etc. IMO what most people see in the stereotype is the young party group - - - but isn't that the same with heteros?

This is an interest I've been following for 20+ years. I took an interest because I worked at a company where I was the minority as a straight female.

Gays are just people - - there is no gay group think - - they are as varied as anyone else. They have one thing in common - - attraction to same gender. That's it.

They were forced to create a culture on the fringe of society. Many lived a straight life out of necessity - - escaping to clandestine sexual rendezvous.

Some gays have spoken about the loss of gay culture. As gays become accepted in main stream society - - getting married - having families - - - will they lose that "sex culture"? I think it is already happening. Although - - just like heteros - - there will always be those young partiers pushing the extreme.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Yes, I know what you mean. I have two fairly close gay friends that I have known for quite a while. One is pretty flamboyant - the other is very "macho" (quiet, unassuming, hates the idea of flaunting sexuality). Both of these guys are currently in long-term relationships. Although I can't be 100 percent certain, both have claimed that there has been no infidelity.

They are as normal as anyone else - there's no depression, no drug or alcohol abuse. Both would like very much to marry their partners. How odd that I, as just one individual, would be personally associated with not one, but two of the gays representing the very minute percentage of long-term relationships.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
They are as normal as anyone else - there's no depression, no drug or alcohol abuse. Both would like very much to marry their partners.


Yes they are. They are just people - - normal people. Born with a difference (not a defect) - - no different then red hair - - or being left handed.

As a matter of fact - - - I think both left handed people and gays is the same percentage 10%

All the excuses I've been reading in this thread - - - is rather pathetic.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


No. The 10% figure is political propaganda and has long been so from extremely flawed stats from a horrifically bad set of sampling survey incidents from way back to Kinsey and a lot similar since..

The best research puts it closer to 2%. To be safe, pretend between 2% to 4% but IIRC, really, it's close to 2%.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




- is rather pathetic.


Actually, to me, what is pathetic is the bias, BELIEF . . . almost religion, that phrase seems to represent

RATHER THAN dealing with my points fair-mindedly and rationally.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Annee
 




- is rather pathetic.


Actually, to me, what is pathetic is the bias, BELIEF . . . almost religion, that phrase seems to represent

RATHER THAN dealing with my points fair-mindedly and rationally.


Like I said - - this has been an interest of mine for 20+ years. I've read plenty of data.

I'm not "dealing" with your points - - because I don't think they relate - - you're just reaching for excuses.

I don't understand what you mean by Bias/Belief/Religion



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme


* Homosexuality isn't natural.


Natural - In accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature.

Obviously it is natural because most animals engage in homosexual intercourse. Most animals are bisexual.



* But they also eat their own feces and/or children...


Yes, and that is natural too, which is why it is stupid to label something "right" or "wrong" based on whether it is "natural" or not... There are things that are natural that are good and there are things that are natural that are bad (in a human's point of view)...


* If everyone were gay, we would go extinct...

So what? If everyone were male we would go extinct. If everyone were female we would go extinct. If everyone were born infertile we would go extinct.



* But it's a disease or mental disorder...

All of the institutes which actually studies the brain in depth disagrees with you... If it were a "disease" you would think we would have found and labeled this "virus" or "bacteria" by now.


* It is causes by evil spirits...

This is a religious/spiritual belief. This is just an opinion. Please do not state it as fact.



* They shouldn't be allowed to get married because it ruins the sanctity!


If you are worried about "sanctity" why not make divorces illegal? Wouldn't that help protect the "sanctity" instead of letting people get married 6 or 7 times? By the way "sanctity" means "holiness" and there is more than one spiritual belief in the nation. Some spiritual beliefs are actually open minded towards gay people... So this is not a valid reason to not allow gay marriages.



* Marriage is between a man and a women!

Yes, because somewhere along the line gay people were banned from getting married. Gay people were getting married long ago believe it or not and no one had a problem then!




* It's disgusting!


This is just an opinion and has nothing to do with the objective reality.




* What's next, allowing animals to get married!? Where do we draw the line!?

How about we draw the line at two consenting adults agreeing to be married, that sounds fair. It will allow blacks and interracial couples to get married too.



* Being gay is a "white" thing...


No, it is a human thing. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, asian, or any other race. If you have same-sex attractions you are gay. If you have same-sex and opposite-sex attractions you are bi. If you have opposite-sex attractions you are straight. It doesn't matter if you "act" on it or not. It's called sexual ATTRACTION not sexual involvement... So people just can't admit to it for whatever reason...

There are plenty of so-called "Straight" guys being with Gay guys and then criticizing homosexuality. This is hypocrisy at its best.



So please, no more of these ignorant arguments OK? Thank you.



This is soooooooo gay.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

On p1 you write:


I terms of evil spirit involvement. I'm inclined to believe it overwhelmingly is a factor. I've been invovled in 100's of exorcisms of all types and I'm pretty convinced in terms of homosexuality. The fact that it's USUALLY very difficult to change and experience lasting deliverance is not a good sign to the contrary. However, i believe that Henry Wright www.beinhealth.com... is correct . . . that ALL ADDICTIONS are a DESPERATE CRY FOR DADDY'S LOVE


Have you exorcised gay people, and do you think that specific demons cause their "gayness" (be it a straight fetish, or whatever it is you think it might be)?
Why is the deliverance usually not effective, do you think?

Unfortuantely I couldn't find any of your "facts" in the links on p.1, which are very unspecified.
The Dogpile links to nothing specific, and neither does searching Henry Wright on the fundamentalist Christian "be in health" blog.

However, a Google search on Pastor Wright quickly reveals that he preaches that diseases are 80% spiritual and 20% physical. So this must be basis of the figures presented.

Anyway, interesting character this Pastor Wright, and I'm going to read some more on the cult-warning blogs. This was already quite insightful:
wrightiswrong.wordpress.com...

In the meantime I pray that our country doesn't become another homophobic, misogynistic dictatorship, like Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
edit on 13-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Annee
 


No. The 10% figure is political propaganda and has long been so from extremely flawed stats from a horrifically bad set of sampling survey incidents from way back to Kinsey and a lot similar since..

The best research puts it closer to 2%. To be safe, pretend between 2% to 4% but IIRC, really, it's close to 2%.



I am fully aware of the different viewpoints.

I also know the 10% came from Kinsey.

Best research? And who did this research?

In the future when gays are fully accepted and do not feel the need to hide their natural/normal gender attraction - - - then and only then - - we might get an accurate percentage.

In the mean time - - I'm sticking with the accepted 10%



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Have you exorcised gay people, and do you think that specific demons cause their "gayness" (be it a straight fetish, or whatever it is you think it might be)?


Exorcism?

I missed that one. How did we get from gays to exorcism?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Well, read what Bo Xian wrote on p.1, which made me wonder why people attempted to debate science with him while missing his original position, which is faith-based, or only scientific as far as it fits into a religious paradigm.
And reading on Henry Wright, they are not even teachings generally agreed upon as "Christian".
edit on 13-1-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I think gay people are born that way....I know your going to hate this point of view but I consider it a chemical imbalance...but not a disease.
The theory I tend to believe is it has to do with the amount of horomones recieved during pregnancy. Here's a thing on pregnancy hormones and finger length being linked to sexual orientation. Not a proven but a theory I can buy into none the less.
ETA. I can't find the link I saw before but the lame term gist was
If testosterone is dominant in a male he will be attracted to females. A female with a higher testosterone level will most likely like girls too.
If estrogen is dominant in a female she will of course like males but on the vise versa a male with higher than average estrogen levels will likely fancy men.....This all according to that theory affects the length of your ring finger. Notice girly hands tend to have close to the same length ring finger as the pointer finger.....of course this is just one theory.
I'm not gay myself but I myself am tired of the ignorance displayed towards the community. I can assure anyone reading this who happens to be gay...your not the only ones getting tired of the bashing. Us tolerant type breeders are tired of seeing lesser tolerant people beat this horse to death too.
edit on 13-1-2012 by PutAQuarterIn because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join