Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jor-el

Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?

2,645 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jor-el

How could my body 'know' anything?

That is exactly my point, your body is controlled by biology, it doesn't care that you seem to think that just because you live in a technological society you have all these different options open to you.

You can justify your thoughts based on that society, but in fact you are still controlled by biology, whether you agree or not in unimportant to that simple fact.

Like I said, we have a choice when we have children. That's not an opinion, that's fact. We do not suddenly become overcome with lust every spring and imperganate a chosen female. Nor is every female a baby making machine. We are creatures thta, unlike most, choose when to have children and chooses how many we have. Again, not an opinion, that's fact. That seperates us from the vast majority of animals on this planet.

Every time we fall in love or think about sex, that does not lead to sex either.

I do think you're deluding yourself over this a little.

Let me ask you something. Since the vast majority of humans are hetroexual and can thus 'fulfil that biological purpoe' does it really matter if the rest do not? And if it does, than why? After all even among those capable of breeding, that doesn't mean they will.

Jor el, there's more to life than just having children, far more.

As I said, we are not, rational beings, we rationalize our actions and thoughts and then later on justify them as the correct path. We are rationalizing beings, not rational beings.

All you have said is rationalizing the obvious, that we are controlled by our biology. If you think otherwise then you have to justify homosexuality on that basis because objectively speaking everyone knows that it leads to a dead end biologically.

There isn't any way around this, if homosexuals do insist in that course of action they need to rationalize it this fact away as unimportant, forgetting that a species does not thrive on dead end biology.

Biology controls them too.

Every time you fall in love or think about sex, it does not lead to actual sex, but again it is a biological expression of the desire to do so. The biology is not merely in the act, it is in the thoughts and actions that lead you to that desire. Hormone levels, increase the desire which makes you think about it more. A look, an expression from a person you are attracted to will increase your blood pressure, all of it is a biological preparation for the act itself. naturally you and I don't realize this, we are rationalizing it in a different way, such as thinking about her eyes, or the way she walks.

In answer to your question, heterosexuals have a natural tendency in modern society to ignore the obvious. Since sex is no longer tied to reproduction, they think they can have the sex and not worry about reproduction until a later date when they somehow have a more stable life or feel prepared emotionally. Something the body does not consider at all since those are artificial constructs only a few centuries old. To the body you are still in the wild.

This freedom has some interesting repercussions. The more prominent of these is that heterosexuals later on have a lot more difficulty in actually having or accepting children, they in fact cut themselves off from what fulfills them emotionally, to other things that can fulfill them intellectually, such as a career.

Careers and sex then become surrogates that are used to try to fulfill that empty place in their hearts that they do not realize is the lack of emotional connection and fulfillment that is provided by other people such as children and even parents.

I know and can speak for myself as one of those many who once chose this type of path and it led to a deep dark place.

Your belief that there is more to life then having children is a reflection of your youth, if I may be so bold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

OK sex is not just about reproduction in the natural world. Higher ordered mammals engage in sex (homosexual and heterosexual) not only for reproduction, they also do it for fun, comfort, if they're bored..you name it. So to say that it isn't a biological natural state is a fallacy made by those who are uncomfortable themselves with homosexual sex. Do like the bonobos do, if you don't like it, don't do it. Other than I don't see where the OP is attempting to address a question so much as have people agree with the supposition that it doesn't hold a biological need. That has been proven false, shown to be false and that the reason homosexuality is frowned upon at all is cultural bias.

With all due respect that is BS.

What you consider fun or recreation or whatever is simply fulfillment of the biological imperative. You rationalize it however you want, but that is the simple truth.

I also said that homosexuality is natural, it is merely not the norm. Norm is expressed by function and biology, even if you don't care to admit it.

It is natural in that it seems to be natures way of population control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

On balance of evidence, since he said nothing about homosexuality you can't really say anything either way. (And since I'm not christian what he did and did not say is relevent enough to me personally for me to say anything.)

What he did say, was referring tto hetrosexuality so you can only take it to mean he was pro-straight marriage.

To use a imple example, if I say 'I like mushroom pizza' what does that statement say about me? Well it says one thing: that I like mushroom pizza. It doesn't say what my opinion is on other kinds of pizza, or if I like burgers or not and you can't take my silence on the matter to insert that I do/don't like in there. (Thankfully unlike jesus you can simply ask and I'd tell you, so you'd not have to do that :P)

Ahh, but if you only ever speak about mushroom pizzas and never mention other types of pizza (let alone burgers), then it would be reasonable to presume that you have at best little interest in other pizzas, and possibly an active hatred of any pizza without mushroom. You see, this isn't the only place Jesus speaks on sexuality. In Matthew 5 he refers to a man looking lustfully at a woman is the same as committing adultery in his heart. It doesn't say that a woman looking lustfully at a man is sin, but is it safe to assume that he meant that also? He didn't mention a man looking lustfully at a man either, or a woman looking lustfully at a woman. What inferences can we make about these? So on the balance of this, is his comment here aimed only at men looking at women, no other type of person. Maybe women get to ogle at men with impunity.... Or maybe he was referring to any person lustfully looking at any other person who was not their wedded spouse?

Well it has been suddenly warm here today.... :P

And suddenly cold here :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

I'm all man thanks.

Being gay does not make you any less of a man

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

That's really good. Because biology has little to say about sociology. You should distinguish the two. You happen to be talking with a person with a degree in a social science and a healthy understanding of biological sciences including lab work at a university. I have continued relentlessly to show you that biology does not hold that sexuality is purely about reproduction beyond endorphins gained from eating burgers with sugar coated ketchup. I hope you are not in the habit of ignoring certain facts.

Oh, then please enlighten us, what is biology about, specifically as it relates to sexuality? You aren't certainly going to talk to us about the digestive tract now I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Small minds see the world in blacks and whites, no surprise here.

Sexuality isn't strictly "homo" or "hetero". Human sexuality exists on a spectrum. There is no "norm" so to say.

Ah the spectrum... where everything is normal.

You may call it black and white, but I see a majority and I see a minority, the norm then is the majority. Sorry if you don't agree, but normally that is exactly how we as peoples see things.

You can quote all the science in the world, the norm is still the norm. Something that does not conform to the norm is not the norm. Simple.

I'm sure you'll find a way to complicate it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Because no two individuals of any species carry the exact same genetic outlines. Not even identical twins have identical genes. They may be similar, but there are variations. As such, heterosexuality is the primary "default" position because without the drive for heterosexual sex, then there is no procreation (unless the species is asexual, but most are not). If any geographical area did for some outlandish reason discover itself to be primarily homosexual, within two generations the species would die out in that area.

And here I think is exactly the reason for this thread. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Again, this must be repeated without end.... This does not mean that we should exclude homosexuals from society, they are productive members in every other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pop It and Shove It

I'm pretty sure Jesus THE SON OF GOD would have thought to mention how vehemently opposed he was to homosexuality if he was. It's not man's place to put words in Jesus' mouth by simply assuming he didn't approve of something because he didn't give approval directly. This is how wars start and how people become bigots and look down on others. Christians should remember that Jesus taught to love and also remember that the Bible is man made. To think man didn't input his own views and opinions into this age old book is just naive.

I've wondered before what Christians would do if they had gay friends and God cast them into Hell on Judgment Day...would they do and say nothing, to speak out and defend these people who were certainly better people than some of the pedophiles in the church who probably get a free pass? How is THAT loving thy neighbour...

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Yellow eyes are actually a bad example as I have yellow eyes, well amber but it’s the same thing, which just goes to show that you don’t really understand what normal is or the amount of variation there can be.

Well I simply chose what came to me out of the blue. Would you say your eye colour is the norm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

Ahh, but if you only ever speak about mushroom pizzas and never mention other types of pizza (let alone burgers), then it would be reasonable to presume that you have at best little interest in other pizzas, and possibly an active hatred of any pizza without mushroom. You see, this isn't the only place Jesus speaks on sexuality. In Matthew 5 he refers to a man looking lustfully at a woman is the same as committing adultery in his heart. It doesn't say that a woman looking lustfully at a man is sin, but is it safe to assume that he meant that also? He didn't mention a man looking lustfully at a man either, or a woman looking lustfully at a woman. What inferences can we make about these? So on the balance of this, is his comment here aimed only at men looking at women, no other type of person. Maybe women get to ogle at men with impunity.... Or maybe he was referring to any person lustfully looking at any other person who was not their wedded spouse?

Like I say, with me you have the benefit of going 'hey shadowhive, you only mention liking mushroom pizza, does that mean you hate others?' In which case I could remove all doubt and speculation by stating what I think about other kinds (I like cheese ones and vegtarian ones, but since I don't eat meat any with meat is a no... in case you eondered).

Looking lustfuly is not the same as having sex with someone, of course. And, again, absence does not really confirm or deny anything.

The bible is not a complete list of everything jesus ever said to anyone ever. So he could have had an opinion on those things and could have said it, but it just didn't get passed into the oral beliefs. Of course I'm not saying that's as a certainty, just a possibility but it's still something worth noting.

If god was really that against homosexuality why didn't jesus say so in no uncertain terms?

And suddenly cold here :ph34r:

Uh oh! Maybe you're right....

Edited by shadowhive
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

Ah the spectrum... where everything is normal.

You may call it black and white, but I see a majority and I see a minority, the norm then is the majority. Sorry if you don't agree, but normally that is exactly how we as peoples see things.

You can quote all the science in the world, the norm is still the norm. Something that does not conform to the norm is not the norm. Simple.

I'm sure you'll find a way to complicate it though.

Most human traits exist on a spectrum. Intelligence, physical strength and (as mentioned) eye, hair and skin colour. Can you tell me why in none of those the majority does not matter?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were influenced by the negative teachings of their Christian past against homosexuals. Take that into account. If oldschool Christianity didn't have an issue with it, Germany and Russia wouldn't have thought about killing their gay brothers and sisters. The Nazi party was formed at a gay bar, S&M gay bar. Ironic isn't it.

Incorrect and if anyone studies those two societies they will realize how incorrect they are.

I did google that last statement though...

Lively's crime? In his book, "The Pink Swastika," Lively exposes a secret homosexual activists don't want you to know about Nazi Germany: that although the Nazis did persecute homosexuals, the homosexuals the Nazis persecuted were almost exclusively the effeminate members of the gay community in Germany, and that much of the mistreatment was administered by masculine homosexuals who despised effeminacy in all its forms.

Ludwig Lenz worked at the Sex Research Institute in Berlin, which was destroyed by Hitler's Brown Shirts in 1933 likely because its records, including 40,000 confessions from members of the Nazi Party, would have exposed the sexual perversions of Nazi leadership. Lenz said that "not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal."

In fact, the Nazi Party began in a gay bar in Munich, and Ernst Roehm, Hitler's right hand in the early days of Nazism, was well-known for his taste in young boys. William Shirer says in his definitive "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," not only that Roehm was "important in the rise of Hitler," but also "like so many of the early Nazis, (he was) a homosexual."

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/080515

Thank you for that information, it was enlightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

In modern society, neither homosexuality per se, nor homosexaul acts are a sin, if they have no other harmful consequences. Homosexuality is a genetic difference from the norm of human sexuality, in that the norm of human sexuality is evolved to reproduce humanity. That makes life hard for the 5% or so of people who are born homosexual, genetically. Such people need love, support, compassion and "protection ", more than the average citizen, because of their statistical scarcity and thus minority status. They are more vulnerable, as statistics in health and many other areas prove. Other wise they require the same human rights and protections as every citizen.

Not all homosexual behaviour is genetic. As with all sexual behaviour, some is a product of likes, preferences, pleasures, opportunity, etc. Inherently, in a modern world, homosexual acts of choice are not sinful, again unless they cause harm by their nature or their consequences. Anything we do which knowingly harms ourself or an other is a sin, because it his harmful to the wondrous entity that is a human being.

IN any case it is not the role of one human to judge another except, again, where one human harms another. Humans in a civil/secular society DO have the right to regulate behaviour which causes harm, including sexual behaviour There are many sexual practices which cause harm and require regulation. This might include some homosexual practices but certainly also includes many hetero sexual ones.

For example there have been a number of cases where heterosexuals and homosexuals have been charged with knowingly having unprotected sex with others, when they are carrying serious STDs, but tell their partners they are safe, or say nothing at all. This is considered a form of assault, even if the sex itself is consensual, because it can cause harm ranging up to death..

I think this reflects my understanding as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odin11

Well I simply chose what came to me out of the blue. Would you say your eye colour is the norm?

Amber eyes are within the normal spectrum that human eyes can be. They're just very rare.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

That is exactly my point, your body is controlled by biology, it doesn't care that you seem to think that just because you live in a technological society you have all these different options open to you.

You can justify your thoughts based on that society, but in fact you are still controlled by biology, whether you agree or not in unimportant to that simple fact.

And yet in this technological society I have these options and I'm not going to ignore them because of what you say.

My biology tells me that my sexuality is not hetrosexual. That does not mean i'm hiding behind that and actin like everyone has the same biology, ignoring what is obvious.

As I said, we are not, rational beings, we rationalize our actions and thoughts and then later on justify them as the correct path. We are rationalizing beings, not rational beings.

All you have said is rationalizing the obvious, that we are controlled by our biology. If you think otherwise then you have to justify homosexuality on that basis because objectively speaking everyone knows that it leads to a dead end biologically.

There isn't any way around this, if homosexuals do insist in that course of action they need to rationalize it this fact away as unimportant, forgetting that a species does not thrive on dead end biology.

Biology controls them too.

Again, what the hell are you on Jor el? Why does it matter so much to you that gay people follow your idea of biology and becme good little hetroseuals to carry on the species? We're not exactly on the verge of extinction, requiring every individual to 'do their duty' to ensure the survival of the species.

So why?

Every time you fall in love or think about sex, it does not lead to actual sex, but again it is a biological expression of the desire to do so. The biology is not merely in the act, it is in the thoughts and actions that lead you to that desire. Hormone levels, increase the desire which makes you think about it more. A look, an expression from a person you are attracted to will increase your blood pressure, all of it is a biological preparation for the act itself. naturally you and I don't realize this, we are rationalizing it in a different way, such as thinking about her eyes, or the way she walks.

And my biological desire for sex is not the same as yours. And your desies are not the ame as anyone elses.

In answer to your question, heterosexuals have a natural tendency in modern society to ignore the obvious. Since sex is no longer tied to reproduction, they think they can have the sex and not worry about reproduction until a later date when they somehow have a more stable life or feel prepared emotionally. Something the body does not consider at all since those are artificial constructs only a few centuries old. To the body you are still in the wild.

This freedom has some interesting repercussions. The more prominent of these is that heterosexuals later on have a lot more difficulty in actually having or accepting children, they in fact cut themselves off from what fulfills them emotionally, to other things that can fulfill them intellectually, such as a career.

Careers and sex then become surrogates that are used to try to fulfill that empty place in their hearts that they do not realize is the lack of emotional connection and fulfillment that is provided by other people such as children and even parents.

I know and can speak for myself as one of those many who once chose this type of path and it led to a deep dark place.

Your belief that there is more to life then having children is a reflection of your youth, if I may be so bold.

Honestly, that sounds like utter nonsense. Ask any parent here and i'm sure they'd rove you wrong but then I guess you'd ignore that because they're not 'wild'.

Once agai, you have this bleak, horrible world view. What happened to you to make you this negative?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pop It and Shove It

Amber eyes are within the normal spectrum that human eyes can be. They're just very rare.

I've never met anybody with amber eyes :o that'd be cool. My eyes are a mix of green and blue, the colours sorta swirl into each other but they're really bold colours in their own right, never met anybody with the same. And never know what to put on forms if it asks my eyes colour :w00t: #firstworldproblems

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odin11

I've looked a little into the process that was oral tradition, and while you don't trust it, I do.

Have you ever played the game chinese whispers (also known as telephone, operator, grapevine, broken telephone, whisper down the lane, gossip, secret message, the messenger game and pass the message)? Its were you whisper a phrase down a line of people and compare the original and final messages to see how they changed. When I've played it the original and final messages were unrecognizable, and that is just with a span of 10 mins. or so and 25 people. Now imagine what years and 1000s of people can do to a concept and how corrupted it can become by indirect communication.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Have you ever played the game chinese whispers (also known as telephone, operator, grapevine, broken telephone, whisper down the lane, gossip, secret message, the messenger game and pass the message)? Its were you whisper a phrase down a line of people and compare the original and final messages to see how they changed. When I've played it the original and final messages were unrecognizable, and that is just with a span of 10 mins. or so and 25 people. Now imagine what years and 1000s of people can do to a concept and how corrupted it can become by indirect communication.

Telephone/Chinese Whispers works to corrupt a message because they only get to hear it once, and it's usually a complicated set of phrases that no person could rightfully be said to memorise in one hearing. Thus after going through 20 or 25 whispers, of course it's going to be totally garbled at the other end.

This is not oral tradition. Oral tradition is a discipline. With the Jewish Mishnah (oral tradition of the Rabbi's from about 100BC-200AD), the Jews set up schools where people were trained in rote memorisation, utilising mnemonic devices to make it easier to remember, and many other techniques. And while no such evidence of a school exists for early Christian tradition, many argue that such a formal school was unnecessary because it was the teachings of only one Rabbi, and therefore didn't need a formal school. Remember, the earliest Christian converts were Jews, so they knew the process of oral tradition. Then those who had memorised the gospel were sent out as teachers, to preach the words of Jesus to others.

So with respect, I totally reject the comparison between oral tradition and Chinese Whispers. They are not the same thing at all, not even remotely. A better comparison would be if took those 25 people, got them all together at once, and told them the phrase, using rhythmic devices and language that would make it easier to stick in the brain, and then had them repeat it, over and over and over and over and over and over and over, until they were absolutely perfect. Then they go each to 25 people and repeat it to them, over and over and over and over, until they can say it in their sleep. Then bring all 625 people back together and ask them what the passage was. All of them will tell you virtually the same thing. Ok, send those 625 people out to teach another 25 people word for word, letting them repeat it over and over and over, 15,625 will come back and tell you the exact same thing, virtually word for word. Of course, not everyone has a fantastic mind for rote memorisation, so filter out those who don't do so well, and send out only those who seem to have a gift for it. I'll be conservative and say only 10% of those who hear it have the ability to transmit it onward. That's still 1,562 people who can recite the phrase virtually word-perfect. And those are the ones who are taken as the teachers, and sent to tell the message to others.

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pop It and Shove It

Telephone/Chinese Whispers works to corrupt a message because they only get to hear it once, and it's usually a complicated set of phrases that no person could rightfully be said to memorise in one hearing.

This is not oral tradition. Oral tradition is a discipline. With the Jewish Mishnah (oral tradition of the Rabbi's from about 100BC-200AD), the Jews set up schools where people were trained in rote memorisation, utilising mnemonic devices to make it easier to remember, and many other techniques. And while no such evidence of a school exists for early Christian tradition, many argue that such a formal school was unnecessary because it was the teachings of only one Rabbi, and therefore didn't need a formal school. Remember, the earliest Christian converts were Jews, so they knew the process of oral tradition. Then those who had memorised the gospel were sent out as teachers, to preach the words of Jesus to others.

So with respect, I totally reject the comparison between oral tradition and Chinese Whispers. They are not the same thing at all, not even remotely.

I disagree. Ponder this for a moment..

Jesus talks to me about heterosexual marriage but because he didn't talk about homosexual marriage, I have chosen to add a new spin to what he said and assumed his view on homosexuals and put words into his mouth and now that is what is passed on...

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

I disagree. Ponder this for a moment..

Jesus talks to me about heterosexual marriage but because he didn't talk about homosexual marriage, I have chosen to add a new spin to what he said and assumed his view on homosexuals and put words into his mouth and now that is what is passed on...

Ah, but you have people who have heard this message before, and you saying something suddenly new that no one's heard of before, how long will it be before you get found out? Especially if you go to a town with a fellow colleague, you're both preaching the same message and someone says "Hang on, that other guy said nothing about what you're saying here, what's the deal"?

Other than that, we could choose to believe that those who were charged with rote memorisation intentionally changed his words, but you're left with several pesky questions, the least of which is "prove it" (ok, technically that's not a question, but that's life, I guess :D)

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

How can you call something natural yet at the same time a deviance. It doesn't compute. IMO I think this is where you are in your cognitive quest of trying to find a way to be 'true' to your religion and accepting of something other then hetero.. it seems to me you need to have a "biological" reason for homosexuality in order for it to be valid in your mind. (Of course this is just what I think and I could be wrong)

Natural and deviance are two specific words. Homosexuality can be considered natural in that it exists in nature, but it is a genetic deviance from the norm.

I hate to break it to you but "hetero" is not the cats meow of sexuality my friend-- it is one of four. It would be like me arguing that as a female I am better then you because males have very little part in the female ability to carry a life to term and give birth. It would be as if I was saying since you are a male and therefore you can never have the experience of growing a life inside of you, so you have no real biological survival use or importance. These arguments are elitist, ignorant, and non productive. IMO Wouldn't you agree?

Here is a link for you,

http://www.kinseyins...ak-hhscale.html

No I would not agree, what I perceive you are attempting, is to reconcile the fact that even though we can accept homosexuality in society, we need not accept it is a normal sexual behaviour. It is not. It is in fact a deviance from the norm, not merely a natural variation as so many people try to convince society. It is a fact that people are simply not willing to accept. But it remains a fact all the same.

The fact that it exists in nature does not make it any less deviant.

If I find that 1% of a population is susceptible to a particular illness, it is still a deviance from the norm. Look at the words as they are meant to be used, not what you somehow read into them.

There is no 'sexual' norm per say Jor el, it can be a tough concept to wrap ones mind around. One can be any of the four variations (or not) at different times in their lives. This would all be considered normal in the study of Human Sexuality.

I disagree wholeheartedly, I find that particular rationalization ineffective. The norm is found by function and biology, what contradicts that function and biology may be natural, but it is not the norm.

“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats…The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

“It is a characteristic of the human mind that tries to dichotomize in its classification of phenomena….Sexual behavior is either normal or abnormal, socially acceptable or unacceptable, heterosexual or homosexual; and many persons do not want to believe that there are gradations in these matters from one to the other extreme.”

Bottom line is there are 4 sexual expressions and not one is more normal then the other. That is the whole story biologically.

Please note Sheri that once again you are trying to justify a biological argument with a sociological defense, it ain't good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

Surely it's so very obivous that Jesus only talked about marriage in the context of male/female relationships, because that's all that marriage was about. There was hardly any such thing as gay marriage in the 1st century middle east, was there. To assume from that that because he didn't specifically put his seal of approval on same-sex relationships, he condemned them, really is to put words into his mouth and thoughts into his head, surely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

I tossed a coin one day and said - Heads I'll be straight and only like guys..tails I'll swing the opposite way.. It came up heads, so it was an easy choice to make up my mind what sexuality I wished to have ..I was going to do the ole - Eeenie Meenie Minie Moe to help me chose my sexuality, but the coin toss was quicker lol :P I am just messing Jorel to add some humour..

Seriously though. and these are my own thoughts and observations......I don't think it is a choice to become a homosexual.. Not if so many took their lives because they knew it was not normal and all they did to try and be what is considered normal... Force it - Then you had those who forced themselves to date females and even marry them, thinking it would make the gay go away ..But these things cannot work.. I know if I forced myself to be with another woman and marry her, I would be miserable and couldn't stick it..It is not in me to be gay, I cannot get my head around it......Show your Hate - .I guess the same for those who are gay....Some have been known to spout hate over time towards fellow gays thinking that if they condition themselves to HATE it more, it may cure them...weird but I have read that once before..Got me wondering about Fred Phelps of the WBC lol

The bible.. In those days man didn't hold a general understanding, ( not much different from so many today) so as the saying goes - Man fears what he/she does not understand.. It's in our nature to be that way too

So, because it looks odd and not natural to them back them, they thought it was against God...Same for the people today who are greatly against it.....No change there.... So I do not think it is wrong to look down on those in the days of the bible who condemned homosexuality, because they are no different from us today...

Considering that my cousin Sarah is the only gay on my dads side of the family, we know of no other ..I cannot say it is something that runs in the family...Gays do come from straight couples.. Yet I do laugh at those that say - "If they hang around with gays or raised with them, they will turn gay".. That is just an idiotic and dumb thing to say, yet for some reason I find their stupidity amusing..

Biology / Science - I think it could be some sort glitch with the X and Y chromosomes that determine whether we will be male of female.. The glitch could be IE - the X chromosome that makes you a male but faulty in a way that when you are born a male, later on in life as everything else take place, you could find you have female attributes some stronger than others ..So strong that the males find themselves attracted to the same gender, while those who are not effected as strong with the glitch, find that they can be a little feminine but still be 100% straight... It all depends.. I could be wrong, but they are just a few of my own thoughts.

Hi BM, I agree, especially with that last part of your opinion. It is a glitch, whether it is genetic or another form of biological phenomena we do not understand yet. Should we hate people for that glitch? No, we should accept them for who and what they are, but it is still a glitch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odin11

I've never met anybody with amber eyes :o that'd be cool. My eyes are a mix of green and blue, the colours sorta swirl into each other but they're really bold colours in their own right, never met anybody with the same. And never know what to put on forms if it asks my eyes colour :w00t: #firstworldproblems

I love my eyes, they had gotten me more then my fair share of girls when I was in high school. And beyond. lol

My friend has eyes like that but she also has a ring of gold going around the middle of her iris. They are the most beautiful eyes I have ever seen. She calls her eyes blue hazel. I don't know if that is the right term or not but it works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

That is exactly my point, your body is controlled by biology, it doesn't care that you seem to think that just because you live in a technological society you have all these different options open to you.

You can justify your thoughts based on that society, but in fact you are still controlled by biology, whether you agree or not in unimportant to that simple fact.

As I said, we are not, rational beings, we rationalize our actions and thoughts and then later on justify them as the correct path. We are rationalizing beings, not rational beings.

All you have said is rationalizing the obvious, that we are controlled by our biology. If you think otherwise then you have to justify homosexuality on that basis because objectively speaking everyone knows that it leads to a dead end biologically.

There isn't any way around this, if homosexuals do insist in that course of action they need to rationalize it this fact away as unimportant, forgetting that a species does not thrive on dead end biology.

Biology controls them too.

Every time you fall in love or think about sex, it does not lead to actual sex, but again it is a biological expression of the desire to do so. The biology is not merely in the act, it is in the thoughts and actions that lead you to that desire. Hormone levels, increase the desire which makes you think about it more. A look, an expression from a person you are attracted to will increase your blood pressure, all of it is a biological preparation for the act itself. naturally you and I don't realize this, we are rationalizing it in a different way, such as thinking about her eyes, or the way she walks.

In answer to your question, heterosexuals have a natural tendency in modern society to ignore the obvious. Since sex is no longer tied to reproduction, they think they can have the sex and not worry about reproduction until a later date when they somehow have a more stable life or feel prepared emotionally. Something the body does not consider at all since those are artificial constructs only a few centuries old. To the body you are still in the wild.

This freedom has some interesting repercussions. The more prominent of these is that heterosexuals later on have a lot more difficulty in actually having or accepting children, they in fact cut themselves off from what fulfills them emotionally, to other things that can fulfill them intellectually, such as a career.

Careers and sex then become surrogates that are used to try to fulfill that empty place in their hearts that they do not realize is the lack of emotional connection and fulfillment that is provided by other people such as children and even parents.

I know and can speak for myself as one of those many who once chose this type of path and it led to a deep dark place.

Your belief that there is more to life then having children is a reflection of your youth, if I may be so bold.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to mature and figure out who you are before you have children Jor el. In fact, it is a great idea. The commitment and energy that is devoted to parenting probably should not be taken lightly. Not everyone decides on this path though, it isn't for everyone in spite of their ability to reproduce. If someone decides to make their work their source of fulfillment I do not think they are less then in any way.

To put the kind of thought into having kids that Shadow is-- is a reflection of maturity and wisdom. There is more to some peoples lives then having children.For them, they serve and find meaning in other ways.

For ex: I am good at and enjoy parenting a lot, I think I should pay my kids for the privilege of this journey, it is so fun and the person I have had an opportunity to grow into is because of the experience of my kids, but it isn't' the only aspect of my life that brings meaning. I am very fortunate to be married to my best friend and 17 years into this we are madly in love with each other and we look forward to when it will just be us, we invest a lot of time into nurturing our relationship. I have many other aspects of my life that bring me fulfillment besides my kids, for me I think it would be burdensome to my kids if I limited myself to only being able to be fulfilled because of them, part of being an adult is having my own a sense of self too as it helps cultivate a perspective that is not limited to ego-centrism.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.