• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Homosexuality

^^^ Sounds like some psuedo-freudian rubbish to me.

But back to all of this, 'everyone should be treated equally' stuff. We don't treat everyone equally to start with, and why should we? Men and women ARE different. Should we treat them the same? Do you think it's even physically possible for someone to treat men and women the same? Should I treat a murderer the same as a priest?

Everyone starts out with equal worth? Some genetically mutated retard is worth the same as someone who can tie their own shoe HOW? Maybe if you cut them up and sold them as pet food, but not in any societal view.

People are different and should be treated accordingly.
 
blizor-would you say thatk as a consequence of inherent differences, everyone should not have equal rights (unless they are murderers etc)?
if so, who decides the standards?
 
If you want to understand homosexuals, as opposed to homosexuality, then you should read some books written by homosexuals, or maybe watch a movie, or talk to someone. Find out from the source...hearsay and speculation is worthless.
Click to expand...

*hear hear*



Here is a short list to help you get started:



More on homophobia.
 
Monster_ZERO said:
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century[/list]
Click to expand...

what do you think of this review?


Badly misleading advocacy scholarship, November 4, 2000

Let me state at the outset that I am a gay man, and that my first reading of this book really impressed me. It got rave reviews almost everywhere, and I was pretty much convinced that it was brilliant.

But then I had my First Doubt. Specifically (and these discussions have to be specific), I was unable to verify John Boswell's ideas about the ancient Greek words "malakos" and "arsenokoites." In fact, every scholar of ancient Greek I was able to interrogate replied that "malakos" (otherwise, "malthakos") was a VERY well-known word which went into Latin as "mollis" and was universally understood to mean "soft." When used of a man, it meant "effeminate homosexual." Similarly, "arsenokoites" refers to an "active homosexual." Used together, they clearly describe male homosexuals, active and passive.

Boswell spends pages and pages trying to wish these facts away, for no motive I could understand.

Once you begin looking into details like this, doubts only increase.

And then, one fine day, you will think about the book's major point, which was that Christianity had absolutely NOTHING to do with the rise of homophobia in the European nations which succeeded the Roman Empire -- not until early medieval times, at least.

And then Wild Laughter will seize you. What IS the man talking about? John Boswell, a devout Catholic, trying to whitewash the madly homophobic Catholic Church, and its 2,000-year crusade of death and terror against gay people (especially males)?

So let it be known: this book is the Bible of the Gay Christian movement. Gay Christians love this book, cannot be parted from it, and will hear no evil spoken of it.

Everyone else knows it is rubbish, right on the order of "Black Athena."

For further information, consult Dynes, Wayne R.: "The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality."
Click to expand...
 
CZ-74 said:
^^x2 The above is a mechanism on how some young men become homosexual through conditioning. It presumes that ones sexuality is not initially fixed and needs direction and experiences to be formed. I have not heard arguement against it, though they probably exist.
Click to expand...
It's just shit someone made up. You need evidence for an idea, first. I could say that some men become heterosexual because of a lack of self-confidence, indeed a self-hate, which causes them to turn away from their own kind and become attracted to females, which they feel must somehow be 'better.' Other men, feeling confident and comfortable with themselves, naturally seek out other men to be with.

That's an equally plausible 'explanation' of heterosexuality as the 'hero worship' explanation of homosexuality. It's equally dumb. And it has equally zero evidence for it.
 
zorn said:
What's the evolutionary purpose of nearsightedness? Of Down's syndrome?


Right. There isn't any. Evolutionarily, they're "mistakes." I think the same is true of homosexuality. A system in our brain has evolved to make men want to have sex with women, and women want to have sex with men. Most of the time it works very well, but occasionally it doesn't; one of the ways it can malfunction leaves men wanting to have sex with men, women with women.

It's just the same way the system which forms the lenses in our eyes usually works, but sometimes doesn't.
Click to expand...
yes!!! Zorn is smart listen to him.... i veiw homosexuality the same way i view retards (not meaning to offend anyone" because it is a mistake in the brain.
 
You know..i pity people who just want to... hmmm..how should i put this..have a go at other peoples sexuality.And don't say you aren't because i know you are, you think there sexuality is a mistake? Bullshit. You've made a mistake by thinking that. The bottom line is, religion is the reason for certain people thinking this way, it tries to make scoiety think that the 'normal' way of life is for a man to love a woman and a woman to love a man. Well i ask you, what the fuck is normal?Why are you so uncomfortable with something you don't consider to be 'normal'? Are you afraid of gay people? If so, why? Why does it bother you so much that someone wants to be true to themselves and the way they feel? Quite frankly im sick of this 'survival of the species' argument, isn't painfully clear that our planet is overloaded enough with people anyway? So why is it so important to you? If you wanna learn more about the community then fine, just don't diss it like your afraid of it, and don't act like you know everything about it and then say it's a mistake(that was to zorn) cos you come off like an ass.
There, I'm done.
 
I think zorn has it pretty much right

Let's look at our bodies for a minute, in spefic, the appendex. Is there a purpose for it? No. Should it be there? Probably not. Is it anyway? Yes. Is it unnatural? No. Is it a person's fault for having an appendex? Of course not.

I'm not here to bash homosexuals (I'm bi-sexual myself) in any way, but it is simply a flaw in their genetic structure. I view homosexuality in a simliar light that i view pedophilla in that while it's clearly not a person's fault for having those feelings, they do nonetheless, and it's simply a flaw in their genetic structure.
 
Ghettotastic_bong said:
I think zorn has it pretty much right

Let's look at our bodies for a minute, in spefic, the appendex. Is there a purpose for it? No. Should it be there? Probably not. Is it anyway? Yes. Is it unnatural? No. Is it a person's fault for having an appendex? Of course not.

I'm not here to bash homosexuals (I'm bi-sexual myself) in any way, but it is simply a flaw in their genetic structure. I view homosexuality in a simliar light that i view pedophilla in that while it's clearly not a person's fault for having those feelings, they do nonetheless, and it's simply a flaw in their genetic structure.
Click to expand...

Why is it a flaw? I really can't see your logic. Who says men are supossed to love women and women are supposed to love men? Religion does. That's where your argument of 'normal' comes from, just because religion says something, doesn't mean it's true.I mean look, because of all these straight people, we've got an overloaded population on our hands, and some of those people do there best to fuck the world up as much as they can.So why is it a flaw than some people are gay?
 
My arguement comes from what is simply logical. The idea of a species creating a form of population control when we're more than able to (by in large) support our numbers is silly. It is a flaw, because the most basic instinct in life is to reproduce, and to advance your own species.
 
But our species is advanced enough as it is! I can see where your coming from, but that argument is flawed. Who says some wont created to be gay? Maybe you don't have to look at it as if it is a flaw, look at it as if it was meant to happen.
 
Could you please elaborate on the idea of someone created to be gay? I think our logic is more simliar that we're giving eachother credit for, but i'm not entirely sure what you're saying.
 
Do i have to elaborate? Think of it as natural, not a flaw, that's all im saying. You ain't created strictly to be gay, but it's in yourself kinda thing. Not everyone who is gay is just totally gay i know that, but it's just an alternative.That's how i look at it. Seeing it as a flaw is just the wrong way to look i think.
 
It's only a "flaw" in an evolutionary sense. Evolutionarily, the "purpose" of an organism is to propagate its genes... in that sense, any characteristic which impedes successful baby-making would be a flaw. Evolution would eliminate it, if it's possible to do so without causing bigger flaws. That's very different than saying it's flawed in the moral sense. And come to think of it, the evolutionary "flaw" isn't with wanting to fuck ppl of the same sex -- it's with not wanting to fuck the opposite sex.
 
deroxor said:
yes!!! Zorn is smart listen to him.... i veiw homosexuality the same way i view retards (not meaning to offend anyone" because it is a mistake in the brain.
Click to expand...
I view it the same as infertility... while it's an evolutionary 'mistake' there's nothing morally wrong about it. Just sorta like free birth control.
 
Well wanting to fuck the same sex could be seen as an evolutionary flaw. It's a waste of energy, and might get your ass beat...
 
paradoxcycle said:
Look, I understand you're trying to be logical about this but it bothers me that you keep using the words "mistake" and "flaw" in this context regardless of whether or not you use quotation marks. I could essentially ask you the same question: "How do you know you're hetero?"... you just know.
Click to expand...

Exactly what ive been annoyed at, yes it's a logical explanation fair enough, but use different words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top