-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Understanding homosexuality
- Thread starter Zaptruder
- Start date
- Status
I'm gay myself, so Ill try and give my opinion on the subject that Ive heard from numerous sources and some experience.
When people say homosexuality is a choice, its not ment to be understood as a concious, everyday choice. Psichologists sustain that it is an unconcious choice made during the first year of an individual's life.
As far as how "normal"it is, there is evidence that suggests that there has always been the same proportion of homosexuals in societies. There is absolutelly not indication to sustain the popular belief that it has increased or decreased in its 'ratio' to heterosexuals. So some people believe, as do I, that it is normal due to this.
There are also numerous studies that sustain there are different 'degrees' of homosexuality that range from people that have sexual desires exclusively with people of their same sex to people that only desire different sex partners, and degrees in the middle. This suggests that a really big range of society is in that middle range, and the proportion of people that act on those desires varies depending on how accepted homosexuality is on said societies, claiming that as social beings this has a great effect on our conscious and subconscious desitions and even affect our desires.
Oh, btw, the explanation many doctors give to the behaviour of the more 'flamy'gay people being more femenine and choosing certain clothes and such is that it is also a subconscious way of making sure potential partners know their sexual orientation.
When people say homosexuality is a choice, its not ment to be understood as a concious, everyday choice. Psichologists sustain that it is an unconcious choice made during the first year of an individual's life.
As far as how "normal"it is, there is evidence that suggests that there has always been the same proportion of homosexuals in societies. There is absolutelly not indication to sustain the popular belief that it has increased or decreased in its 'ratio' to heterosexuals. So some people believe, as do I, that it is normal due to this.
There are also numerous studies that sustain there are different 'degrees' of homosexuality that range from people that have sexual desires exclusively with people of their same sex to people that only desire different sex partners, and degrees in the middle. This suggests that a really big range of society is in that middle range, and the proportion of people that act on those desires varies depending on how accepted homosexuality is on said societies, claiming that as social beings this has a great effect on our conscious and subconscious desitions and even affect our desires.
Oh, btw, the explanation many doctors give to the behaviour of the more 'flamy'gay people being more femenine and choosing certain clothes and such is that it is also a subconscious way of making sure potential partners know their sexual orientation.
Banjo Tango
Member
I love how this logic works.Spike Spiegel said:
"Homosexuality isn't natural!"
"Yes it is, it occurs in nature."
"Well, SO DOES EATING YOUR OFFSPRING."
Escape Goat
Member
Is an unconcious choice a choice at all?
I find it quite amusing that the vast majority of the supporters of these bans simply want to ban homosexual religious marriage, and that the bans they vote for do absolutely nothing to prevent them.
Currently, homosexuals can have a religious marriage in any state in the country, and the only way that is going to change is if the first amendment and freedom of religion is removed.
Currently, homosexuals can have a religious marriage in any state in the country, and the only way that is going to change is if the first amendment and freedom of religion is removed.
The Shadow
Member
CrisKre said:
Which Psychologists? That sounds more like a Freudian idea than anything else.
Spike Spiegel said:
You people need to pick one flimsy argument and stick by it. I hear "Well, I don't see gay animals, it's not in nature" as much as "Dur, we humans are so much more advance than animals, nothing at all is comparible...they don't breathe, communicate or have sex". The very fact that this is as big of an issue as it is proves how blurry the line is between humans and animals. Have there reports of animals going on a gay-bashing killing spree? Do they kill each other based on lighter or darker color?
(Iceman)And why the hell should it take people as long to make progress regarding gays as blacks? Unlike 150 years or so ago, the world is a lot smaller now in terms of being able to travel and be open to different people. You can just own a TV and be exposed to nearly every corner of the world. The world isn't as closed as it was before(well, techincally...a mind will be as closed as it wants to be). How dare you suggest I shouldn't stand up for MY rights in MY lifetime...not only that, but even your logic is flawed because even if you believe it should take "300 years", the sooner things get started, the sooner equality will be reached. How also dare you suggest I live my life based on YOUR level of acceptance. To be blunt, fuck you. No body is ramming a cock down your throat or trying to "make you gay", your beliefs are just that, beliefs(and yours)....there are a guideline for YOUR LIFE! You can worship your way, you can pray your way, but don't restrict my rights because you "believe" i shouldn't have them.
Yeah I know my post is unrefined...too angry and not enough time to be an english scholar on the matter.
norinrad21
Banned
2 sons grow up in exactly the same conditions, same parents, one becomes gay and one is straight.
Three sons grow up with an abusive mother who molests them. One son becomes gay and the other two, though they have a shitload of problems to deal with, are straight.
These are 2 very common scenarios taking place all over the world right now. They both speak to the fact that homosexuality has a lot more to do with nature than it does choices.
Three sons grow up with an abusive mother who molests them. One son becomes gay and the other two, though they have a shitload of problems to deal with, are straight.
These are 2 very common scenarios taking place all over the world right now. They both speak to the fact that homosexuality has a lot more to do with nature than it does choices.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Please tell me you haven't actually bredspike spiegel said:
:lolBanjo Tango said:
Thank you Banjo
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Lefties aren't normal either. Doesn't really matter in any case.
Can comebody explain the tax benefits of bieng married? I've been married for 10 years and all I can see in the tax penalty based on dependents.
Can comebody explain the tax benefits of bieng married? I've been married for 10 years and all I can see in the tax penalty based on dependents.
The thing is, marriage is not an inherently religious institution, and it certainly isnt an inherently Christian institution. People of all faiths, and those without faith have been getting married for centuries. You are not required to have a religious ceremony to get married, but you are (at least in the US) required to register at the court house to get married. Marriage is a government sponsored institution that grants certain rights and privileges to those joined by in that union. Who are we, as Christians, to take those rights away from people because we disagree with, or dont like their lifestyle?
If you dont want gays in your church, or dont want them to marry in your church, that is fine. That is your right. It is not your right to say they cant attend, or cant marry in the church down the road. Or in a synagogue, or a mosque, or in front of the Justice of the Peace, or hell even in Vegas. It is not your right to say they cannot have the same rights that you have. Which is why as a Christian I felt it was my duty to vote against that amendment. I dont understand why we as a group feel we can take these rights away from people and think that it is Gods will. It makes no sense to me.
Love is love is love. If a man loves another man, I may not understand it, but it doesnt change what it is. If they want to marry and spend the rest of their lives together, more power to them! Marriage is a beautiful thing and should not be hoarded and kept away from those that we deem different. If you want to sit back and say that a gay marriage isnt recognized by the church or by God, well that is your right. You shouldnt be able to say that it cannot be recognized by the government. Thats discrimination and should not happen in this day and age.
If you dont want gays in your church, or dont want them to marry in your church, that is fine. That is your right. It is not your right to say they cant attend, or cant marry in the church down the road. Or in a synagogue, or a mosque, or in front of the Justice of the Peace, or hell even in Vegas. It is not your right to say they cannot have the same rights that you have. Which is why as a Christian I felt it was my duty to vote against that amendment. I dont understand why we as a group feel we can take these rights away from people and think that it is Gods will. It makes no sense to me.
Love is love is love. If a man loves another man, I may not understand it, but it doesnt change what it is. If they want to marry and spend the rest of their lives together, more power to them! Marriage is a beautiful thing and should not be hoarded and kept away from those that we deem different. If you want to sit back and say that a gay marriage isnt recognized by the church or by God, well that is your right. You shouldnt be able to say that it cannot be recognized by the government. Thats discrimination and should not happen in this day and age.
Ignatz Mouse said:
Can you claim "head of household" if you're single? Filing jointly alone puts you on different scales for figuring out many things, including the most important to my income level, the standard deduction amount that goes against your taxable income.
Spike Spiegel
Member
Not yet, I haven't found the right girl... one capable of bearing juicy, succulent offspring.Mercury Fred said:Please tell me you haven't actually bred
That or learned behavior. I'm not pretending to know either way. My only point is that it is abnormal. I think that distinction is an important one to make. That said, I don't understand why people care what others do, as long as the behavior isn't destructive.
But some make the argument that homosexual males are predators of young boys. That they spread AIDS at a faster rate than heterosexuals. Is it possible, even if genetic, that homosexuality is destructive?
buck naked
Member
Seeing the persecution that goes along with homosexuality, I understand the 'who would choose to be gay?' argument.
But here's something that's been on my mind.
I see people make irrational decisions all the time. Self-destructive behaviours from staying in an abusive relationship, physical abuse, substance abuse and addictions (even simple things like spending, porn, games, food). For people in these circumstances, they don't see themselves making conscious choices - the behavour is inevitable. And speaking from experience, the behaviour is often blamed on something uncontrolable or an unavoidable set of events.
I'm not saying that homosexuality is a conscious choice, but I'm pretty sure an obese person would also say 'who would choose to be fat?'
But here's something that's been on my mind.
I see people make irrational decisions all the time. Self-destructive behaviours from staying in an abusive relationship, physical abuse, substance abuse and addictions (even simple things like spending, porn, games, food). For people in these circumstances, they don't see themselves making conscious choices - the behavour is inevitable. And speaking from experience, the behaviour is often blamed on something uncontrolable or an unavoidable set of events.
I'm not saying that homosexuality is a conscious choice, but I'm pretty sure an obese person would also say 'who would choose to be fat?'
Mercury Fred
Banned
You, sir, are a disgrace to Pavement fans everywhere.akascream said:
Nerevar said:
Yeah, roofles or something. Feel free to actually contribute though. Perhaps those of us who don't live 'complex' lives could learn something from your vast experience?
I'm starting to think insults are the best some people can do. Hold those knees tight.. I'm not making any value judgements here.
akascream said:
Yeah, I can agree with all that.
akascream said:
Male predators of young boys are homosexual, not the other way around. And the aids scare about gays has been disproven over recent years.
Might as well say heterosexual men are predators of teenage girls.
akascream said:
I'm only saying you've certainly shown that you are vehemently against homosexuality in other threads, and the post above certainly places a negative connotation on the "abnormality" of homosexuality. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of things which are accepted and people don't try to "fix" (left-handedness, for example) that are stastically abnormal. I'm not claiming anything about my life or it's complexity, merely pointing out the incredible hypocrisy of your statements.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
buck naked said:
Well, there's habit and then there's attraction. My case for homosexuality being not-voluntary comes from my college friend who struggled with it, eventually admitted he was, and acted on it-- all the wile being pretty anti-gay himself. He's one of the most conservative people I know, and he would *not* have chosen to be gay if he could have.
Trying to define what is 'normal' or 'abnormal' in this sense is pretty flimsy. Why is it important to you to label homosexuality 'abnormal'? Inter-racial marriage probably has a greater statistical rarity than same-race marriage; is it therefore 'abnormal' in the same sense? What's the point?
brooklyngooner
Member
akascream said:
Here's a clue as to why you constantly get insulted, in here and the other political thread:
What you offer aren't arguments. "Homosexuals are deviants" isn't an argument, it's an assertion based on fear and ignorance rather than education and contemplation. Especially since that's the only "argument" you offer, nothing else. A one-word reply of "statistics" is likewise not an argument, it's a soft attempt at using some sort of majority-uber-alles psychology to mask what, in the absence of any elaboration of any of your points, seems like naked ignorance, ignorance you and others like you want to codify with law.
If you have science and so-called "statistics" to back up your arguments, then fine. But one-word replies and, as in the other thread, one-pic replies to complex political arguments make the problem yours and not others. You strike me as high-school age, and if you go to college making these sorts of arguments you will fail out, unless you go to Fucktard State or are, say, our president.
akascream said:
You should be very careful with this argument; implying that homosexuals in particular have a tendency towards pedophelia?
In a normal relationship of any sort, two adults (marked by their mental rather than chronological development IMO) engage in it as a consentual activity from both parties.
OTOH, pedophelia is a very aberrant and destructive problem that is NOT AT ALL exclusive to sexual orientation (straight or homosexual or bisexual). Don't confuse the frequent anecdotes of priests molesting young boys as some sort of complete case study of all pedophiles please.
Also; like you've said, *EVEN* if homosexuality is a 'genetic aberration', why does it matter if it causes no harm to other people, or even themselves, under 'normal' (i.e. when they're treated no differently) circumstances?
Like I've said; if it is a genetic disorder, it's marked by a disctinction that it's something that is relatively benign; with the gravest consequences been the lack of a preferred sexually reproductive partner - otherwise rather completely benign for both the person with homosexuality and to everyone else around them.
Most of the problems that can exist are caused by the social functions of an easily polarized and eager to judge, group and stereotype human mind.
It mainly has to do with attitude imo. Many people approach the issue with a sense of entitlement. They want everyone to like what they do, to go out of thier way to respect homosexuality or something.. parades, ect. I find it rather forward and obtuse. A realization on the part of homosexuals that they are indeed in a severe minority would go a long way with me. A bit of humility is all I ask.
I don't consider the marriage issue part of the flamboyant aspect of this culture though. And I really don't see the problem, which is part of what I was pointing out with the predator comment. Monogomy ought to be considered a positive side of homosexuality.
Why should I be careful? Am I supposed to be scared of some kind of homosexual backlash to my views or my expression of other popular beliefs? I definately consider sexual perversion to be a very gray area. Or do you see everything in black and white? Wouldn't you consider somebody that has sex with animals, or with members of the same sex to be more prone to participate in other forms of unusual sexual behavior?
akascream said:
I don't see how this is different from the civil rights movement of the 60's. Blacks and hispanics were in the minority yet there they were, protesting, having parades all up in people's faces trying to get people to respect their differences.
That is totally different. Being black isn't based in some kind of ambiguous sexual nature. It is a racial reality, and the atrocity of their reality was based in slavery.
How about we discuss the reality of homosexuality. I hate metaphores, because you will never find a direct parallel and everyone just ends up arguing a totally irrelevant topic.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Nah, it's just what illogic like yours deserves. You are unreasonable, hence the appeal.akascream said:
By the way, I cite Pavement specifically as Steve Malkmus and the lads were very publicly thoughtful, bright, and progressive-thinking, so it's not an out of turn "insult." I have a hard time thinking that Malkmus wouldn't find your views here abhorrent.
For some reason, it reminds of the liner notes to Nirvana's Incesticide:
kurt cobain said:
akascream said:
What about being hispanic? There is no racial distinction for it... I can choose to abandon my culture and consider myself caucasion if I choose.
So yeah, I think it's actually totally the same. They're fighting for their civil rights, they'll be "in your face" until they get them.
Gays are not exactly free of historical persecution. They were one of the distinct groups rounded up into concentration camps in Nazi Germany, for example. The fact is, their rights have been trampled on, even (and maybe particularily, in the last decade) in the United States. To say that a fight for equal treatment under the law is wrong because the injustices are somehow percieved, by those inclined to support them, as less important, is a cruel thing to say, if you ask me.
I don't really care for the opinions of musicians. I listen to music to hear music. Thier politics are of no more value than anyone elses because they can put together a great song. Nor would I expect otherwise. But you are already pretty close minded, so I guess I'll just leave things at your insults and move on to progressive conversation.
I don't recall any big hispanic movement.
Again with more insults. I refuse to believe this is all the homosexual agenda has to offer. I give them more credit than you.
While the violence is definately disguisting as always, I don't think I would compare the injustice of a few homosexuals to slavery and racial discrimination against blacks especially.
Isn't it possible that somebody would fuck anything? Would that person be considered a homosexual because they happen to also fuck members of the same sex? Do you honestly think sexual deviancy is so black and white?
akascream said:
I don't give a shit what you like....goddamn this is the crap i can't stand. So what if you don't like something...that doesn't give you the right to IMPEDE on someone's rights. Speaking of which, I really get annoyed when someone says gay people are asking for "special" rights. No way is asking for SPECIAL rights, only EQUAL rights.
For the 10,000th time, an animal is not a consenting adult, and that's a more civil response than you should be entitled to....also, "unusual sexual behavior" is hardly patented by gay people. There are no kinky shops for straight people I guess right? Straight people don't have any fetishes, straight people don't participate in "deviant" sexual behavior? Do you believe these things?
shoplifter
Member
akascream said:
Holy shit dude, you actually WENT THERE.
I await the shitstorm you have just created.
- Status