Thinking Homosexuality

I would like to start this thread with a admission: I think homosexuality is wrong.

By wrong, I mean "incoherent", and by "incoherent", I mean "does not cohere". To what, then, does homosexuality "not cohere to"? What I perceive to be the "metaphysical pattern" expressed in the creative dynamism of nature.

Mind, Matter, right, left, up, down, good, evil, sun, moon, day, night, life, death, male and female.

Does any of that have deeper meaning? Or is this just the Human penchant (or the brains penchant) for noticing patterns and projecting significance into them?

People are more Important than Metaphysics

I don't think any sane person - and by sane, I mean, aware of how they work, and seek to relate that knowledge with care to their relations with Others - could deny that Human beings are more important than metaphysical commitments.

I make this statement not just because it is intuitively plausible, but because evolutionarily speaking, our brain primarily evolved via the activating presence of the Human Other, and so produced an excited phenomenology (feeling good). Thus, wouldn't it be retarded to hack away at the very source of your capacity to feel good i.e. to hurt, disrespect, or dishonor, a Human Other?

So "the metaphysics" of this moral situation being described puts the real-life needs of the Human being ahead of abstract reflection upon the natue of reality. Because of this, I am a libertarian, and so, do not wish to coerce or press upon other people anything they themselves do not wish to believe.

This supremely sane way of thinking is a corollary of a realistic understanding of Human vulnerabilities, and so, seeks to honor that reality by not destabilizing Human relations by provoking Others into defending their views, leading you to defend yours, and so mindlessly throw the Human collective into a feedback loop that operates as a system dynamic upon the individual units.

So whats my issue?

I feel as if its completely natural - coherent - for the physical mind and body of the Human to be responsive i.e. to be "activated" into a state of awesome wonder, and to actually enforce upon itself the recognition of a need to restrain itself from some forms of action.

I fantasized earlier this:

Someone asks me:

"are you disturbed by those feelings"?

And honestly, I answer, "yes".

"Why are you disturbed"?, my interlocutor asks

"Because it doesn't seem like its right", I answer.

Ultimately, it dawns upon me that the issue is feelings, and how we respond, or admit into our being, the execution and elaboration of certain feelings.

Is it wrong to suppress or restrain feelings? Surely, this can't be the core of the argument, otherwise we'd need to criticize the hundreds of times a day we need to restrain a feeling we have lest we hurt another and bring needless stress into our lives. We restrain and inhibit all the time - and it's necessary, because the "floating of our thoughts" goes every which way, literally, to as far as our brain-minds can be probabilistically activated into imagining. If I had the thought of ripping someones head off, would I be a "prude" not to do it? Or, simply, a mature and self-aware Human, disturbed by this thought, but only "somewhat" because I know I would never do it. My knowledge of my self "dilutes" the thought. But indeed, if I saw myself genuinely able to do such a thing, my conscience would trigger a "collapsed heart beat", i.e. an anxiety attack would ensue, because I do not want to hurt another person.

Why does insanity scare us? Because like all creatures on this planet - and presumably, throughout the universe - matter is intrinsically inclined to "relax" the stresses moving through the system, and so, it compels the organism to perceive coherently - i.e. to correlate knowledge with immediate experience.

Homosexuality of course, will not inevitably produce evil people. The vast majority of homosexuals are homosexual because of a life-time of biological conditioning, and, not being offered by society any way to process these energies, come to experience their condition as "genetic" and "intrinsic" to what they are, as opposed to a state of being to which their biology is currently attracted.

In any case, I can of course conceive different points of view, the most popular and sophisticated of which derives from a "spiritual gnosis" - or knowledge - that has as an implication of its perspective a sort of "nullifying" influence on the expressed world.

I do not wish to analyze such a view point (although I know many readers may have that view point), but only wish to say that there is nothing evil, at all, in wishing to honor your sense of metaphysical reality, just as, for instance, any normal and sane human being would seek to honor the person they're speaking with, and not insult them.

This then leads to a final issue: what if my commitment to a metaphysical view that contradicts that of another, disturbs them? Now, the disturbance isn't simply in me, but in how they experience their own actions and beliefs against a viewpoint that disavows its coherency.

If tolerance is tolerance, should it not be a tolerance with a bit of sophistication? If homosexuality legitimately compels reflective thinkers to "honor" physical realities insinuations: in the creative capacity emerging in the coming together of opposites (X and Y chromosomes), is it not possible for our Humanhood to maintain its priority in our relations, leaving our private metaphysical views to have power in our own personal spiritual lives?

This issue is a subtle issue that every mind has an impulse to pre-conceive. If you already agree with this general orientation, you're likely to appreciate the nature of my argument. Conversely, if you are committed to the absolute moral legitimacy of homosexuality, you make that assertion without reference to how the Human is epistemologically motivated to conceive a metaphysics, and so, simply wish that everyone could see things as "clearly" as you do, without considering the objective elements that entrain our awareness.

All in all, homosexuality is not evil and will not perforce create badness in society. The only thing which promotes badness is an egotistical self-absorption that fails to relate to the Other with respect and care.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Well, that was a wall of self-absorbed sophistication.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Too much BS, got bored after the second paragraph so skipped to the end of the thread. Yawn ( in fact it could have been your opening statement that put me off - I'm not Homosexual by the way)

People are people, sex is sex, feelings are feelings

Get over it

Thanks

The OP lost me fairly early on.

It occurs everywhere is nature, and is thus God's will. I think thou dost protest to much.

ITS EVERYWHERE!

To be honest, I got lost with the "...expressed in the creative dynamism of nature", paragraph two. I'm sure it all means something, but that's not obvious to me!

However, on a reality level, I think homosexuality is right if that's your thing. Live and let live I say, and metaphysics can take a running jump.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
The OP lost me fairly early on.

Ugh, boring. Could not read anymore after a paragraph and then some!

Most gay people are born gay ....if you don't like it don't hang out with them. We are everywhere though, and I am sorry your ignorance is keeping you from some pretty cool people!

a reply to: paraphi

referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential physics?

a reply to: kurthall

Enlighten ignorance then,

How are people born attracted to the same sex? What's the evolutionary purpose?

Basically, what scientific proof are you offering or are you reciting your own doctrine as fact?

Yea I read all of this but to no avail, there isn't really a point. Homosexuality isn't really new, it's kind of been around as long as the human race itself. I'd call that God's will.

originally posted by: thinline
a reply to: kurthall

Enlighten ignorance then,

How are people born attracted to the same sex? What's the evolutionary purpose?

Basically, what scientific proof are you offering or are you reciting your own doctrine as fact?

Hell I was only attracted to toys and sugar till I was 11. Are we going to start a nature vs nurture debate now?

I was just talking with my son about what I have learned about homosexuality. I have been pressing it hard the last few days researching it. I love LOVE to research so what I found was interesting and would totally debate this subject if I were given the chance.

In regards to your post OP I'm thinking you are over thinking but at the same time I kind of enjoyed your ramblings. Sounds to me you are wrestling with the idea in your heart.

Quite frankly from a metaphysical level I would say homosexuality has it's roots in reincarnation and it's necessary.

originally posted by: Astrocyte


This supremely sane way of thinking is a corollary of a realistic understanding of Human vulnerabilities, and so, seeks to honor that reality by not destabilizing Human relations by provoking Others into defending their views, leading you to defend yours, and so mindlessly throw the Human collective into a feedback loop that operates as a system dynamic upon the individual units.

Based on the above and being a Homosexual Male with the Ultimate sane way of thinking, I shall avoid critiquing the OP and, by default, avoid the feedback loop.

amoebas are the ultimate homosexuals

a reply to: MamaJ

Appreciate the effort to respond in a non-disrespectful way.

Do I "think" too much? Isn't thinking that which makes the Human being "above" animals?

Ultimately, animals feel. If you want to feel, maybe your desire will place you in an animal in your next reincarnation (wouldn't desire be intrinsic to the reincarnation process, as buddhism claims?).

But thinking, and people who like to think, are basically doing what their organism has evolved to do. Of course, and as I will always stress, thinking is motivated by feelings towards the world. The feelings which compel this so-called "stupid" "self-absorbed-sophistication" with "too much B.S", which caused every poster in this thread "get lost", is awe. Awe, if you really think about it, is a response of the body to its perception and experience of its existence in a world full of a coherent orderliness - a beauty.

So do not think this is just intelligence without feeling! I am compelled by a certain type of feeling that is inconsistent with that experienced by the posters responding in this thread. The actual psychological process to which they appear to be experiencing (that is, if you can't politely address the issues I bring up, its because you're being overhwhelmed by negative feelings and the percepts they generate) is termed "dissociation", and its unfortunately a very normal process in the world we live within.

It's also called "cognitive dissonance". But this term doesn't capture the "depressive" and "weak" feeling that needs to be internalized i.e experienced and known, when logical argument presents a picture that contradicts your own belief and understanding of something.

Whenever we encounter this in life, we have a choice: do we want to be self-absorbed and reflexively tunnel towards views that merely confirm our biases, or do we want to acknowledge that we don't know everything, and so are bound to encounter in our living information that could compel us to change how we understand something?

All I can say is, at its most basic biological level, to create a Human being, you need a male component and a female component. That is, to experience and know as a Human being, you needed the combination and reaction of biological opposites to emerge into existence.

The most basic difference in our experience is our selfhod against the selfhood of others. This called "self and Other" in philosophy.

I see the male-female relationship as expressing the phenomenological (mental) relationship between our ego, or conscious "I" the thinker state, and the feelings we experience in our lived body. So "mind" and "body" are archetypally expressed in the biodynamics of male and female Human beings. The "union" of male and female - sexually - also expresses in the physical reality we share the unification of mind and body - in a global "coupling" of the within (consciousness of the individuals) and the "without" (their sexually connected body's).

Coherency i.e. the reduction of entropy moving between consciousness and the biomatter which processes it, may be about "correlating" inner, symbolized knowledge, with the external world. There may then be a ontological transformation of consciousness and material reality the more "attuned" we are - intellectually - to the processes and dynamics constantly acting upon our biodynamic structure.

a reply to: Astrocyte

You're smart, right? You know one can look at monkeys and learn something about humans, right?
Why do Bonobos have sex?
It's their social glue, a way to get tensions out of the way, bonding, etc. you might look at it as a hierarchy thing but in fact it's not how the monkeys look at it.
Humans are much more complex than Bonobos but physical relations from simple handshake to hug and further are if not meant for procreation just social bonding rituals.
You don't need to be afraid of those who want to bond no matter in which constellation except of course pedophiles and bestiality, be wary of those never wanting to touch or be touched.
Especially human males are pretty much designed to ahem... the prostate excitement can be quite satisfactory, I heard. That's what makes them bond so much closer, pirates, old greeks, navy, soldiers, athletes, gentlemen clubs, masons, ... they're not necessarily homosexual but need their "Bonobo social time".

originally posted by: thinline
a reply to: kurthall

Enlighten ignorance then,

How are people born attracted to the same sex? What's the evolutionary purpose?

Basically, what scientific proof are you offering or are you reciting your own doctrine as fact?

On the side if you care to enlighten me, what is it about evolutionary purpose when in the end, all becomes space dust only to do a similar thing a long time later, at least if that space dust or remnants of us and our died out sun collide and merge with other stuff and create a new big bang.

a reply to: Astrocyte

People are fearful of what they don't understand.

Have you ever read what Freud "thought" about sexuality? It's quite interesting. I'm not so sure it was based on any "feeling". Can't always trust what you feel. We are biologically conditioned and adaptive.

a reply to: Peeple

Why do Bonobos have sex?

The Bonobo example is an inappropriate one.

We have 1400 cc brains, they have 450 cc brains. The processing power for them produces faint impressions of a cognitively suggestive external reality.

We, on the other hand, can see patterns and reflect upon them as a function of our increased neurological complexity.

Humans are much more complex than Bonobos but physical relations from simple handshake to hug and further are if not meant for procreation just social bonding rituals.

They're also beautiful rituals.

Do not exaggerate my point beyond sexuality. Sensuality - or care - between Humans is normal and touch, natural. But there is a point where the sensual within a particular context of care becomes the sexual, where the other becomes "wanted" as an "object".

If, of course, you aren't bound in the metaphysical way that I am (as a function of my "too much thinking") you'd probably progress from the sensual into the consensual, and so, not necessarily "objectify" in the typical way imagined.

Especially human males are pretty much designed

And that's pretty much it, I think. Males likes to project on females that they're sexual desire is just like ours; but it isn't. Testes produce testosterone, and testosterone is the singular hormone behind aggression, assertiveness, i.e. egotistic belief.

Woman can be made to believe that they are "just like men", but the fact is, we have testosterone factories (testes) to "power" our aggression, and so, woman will never ever meet their "super-woman" ideal of competing with men in a patriarchal society,.

It is also the female that has promoted our evolution as a species i.e. her care, her touch, her warmth, and yes, her intense desire to commit and compel commitment in the male.

I trust that the world we live in is completely dominated by a masculinism that has hypnotized woman into wanting the same thing. It's unfortunate, as the female may be the ideal model for how we should be all of the time i.e. caring and respectful i.e. to pay attention to the needs of others, as a mother can't help experience due to hormonal dynamics.

Live and let live.