Buddha1 said:
And what does Leo have to say for himself?
Jan.
homosexuality
- Thread starter Non-Logical-Idea-Guy
- Start date
And what does Leo have to say for himself?
Jan.
Both Heterosexuality and homosexuality are unnatural as we know them today.Jan Ardena said:
Go to the thread: Heterosexuality is unnatural
Is heterosexualty biological or is it a choice
The answer to the above is that it is neither.
Heterosexuality is neither biological nor is it a choice. We have already proved how it is not biological. Now let's briefly discuss how it is not a choice.
For the majority of men heterosexuality is a focred life-style and identity, that they must endure (and excel in) if they have to survive in the society as men (i.e. straight men = masculine men). A heterosexual society is created artificially through applying extensive and intensive external force which is not a one time process --- it has to be continuously applied, because it is up against nature, and nature has a way of asserting itself as soon as the force is weakened or withdrawn. This external force is applied at all the levels of society from the highest macro level to the minutest possible micro level. The sophisticated tools of social governance as well as technolgoy and science help in this in a big way.
This external force may come in the form of explicit social measures through institutions such as religion, science, law, education and the media. These means can be very severe with exrtreme rewards for conforming and equally extreme punishments for not conforming.
This external force may also come in the form of exclusive state support to forces/ lifestyles of heterosexuality and state oppression of focrces of nature that are basically contrary to the very essence of heterosexuality. Or in the form of blockage of facts and information from the general public --- facts that are against the heterosexual ideology. And in the form of misrepresentation of these facts --- especially by the powerful institutions of science. And in the form of false propaganda. And in the form of glorification of fake positive images of heterosexualtioy.
(the current thread is at the same time an assertion of fake power, a reassurance of one's heterosexual identity, mirepresentation of facts and an attempt to marginalise sexual desire of men for men. Although it's an established 'fact' in the heterosexual world that same sex desire happens in marginalised cases, and this 'fact' is also institutionalised into a marginalised, separate 'homosexual' identity, but like I said, you have to continuously keep up the pressure, lest the forces of nature come back to expose your lies.)
But the strongest force --- and this applies only to straight (meaning masculine not heterosexual) men --- comes in extremely
implicit, disguised and subtle forms, especially ---- as gender and sexual roles of men, that men must fulfill in order to have their natural gender (masculinity) acknowledged by the society. And in order to get social power that is so important for straight men. And in order to live socially with other men (and not with feminine males, no offense meant, it’s a question of where one belongs), which is the basic driving force in life amongst all truly stragiht men (and not those who are merely enjoying the status because of unfair codes of heterosexuality).
The Internal pressures are the strongest: By artifically defining what is masculine (straight) and what is feminine (queer) the society has effectively put a great psychological pressue on men --- one that operates from the innermost levels of individuals, and thus unseen on the outside. Thus it's role in determining male sexual behaviour too remains unseen. And therefore the powers of heterosexuality need not acknowldge it at all.
By barring men who 'fail' to 'prove' they are heterosexual from straighthood and thus from the company of other straight men, into a group where straight men don't belong, and which has already been dehumanised for ages (i.e. queer or feminine males), the heterosexual society puts the greatest psychological pressure on men --- scaring them, panicking them into disowning their sexual need for men and forcing themselves to bond with women. The society then showcases this as 'proof' that heterosexualtiy is biological/ natural.
The males today that fiercely claim to be heterosexuals, despise and marginalise male sexual need for men, relate with the heterosexual identity and defend the forces of heterosexualisation are not really the true straight men. They are meterosexual men, but not the positive types. The positive meterosexual or transgendered male is both man and woman. He has the energies of both the genders.
These males are that part of the meterosexual population with an interest in women, who have been given artificial social powers on a platter for centuries – because the societies wanted to 'unnaturally' augment reproduction. They have become addicted to this power, and have started to believe they naturally deserve it. Deep down they know that in a society based on nature and without the external pressures of heterosexuality, they will not be straights. In such a society they do not have enough natural masculinity needed to compete with straight men, especially those that they have condemned today as 'homosexuals' (the fake ones!). In a natural society they will either have to live into the two-spirited and highly respected feminine male group (but they have already lost their positive femininity after living in the straight world for so long!) or live as lesser-men. Therefore, They are not going to give up this power so easily --- especially when they are going great. These males are truly those who are today neither men nor women. In contrast, transgendered, transexual and homoseual men are both men and women in a positive way.
The answer to the above is that it is neither.
Heterosexuality is neither biological nor is it a choice. We have already proved how it is not biological. Now let's briefly discuss how it is not a choice.
For the majority of men heterosexuality is a focred life-style and identity, that they must endure (and excel in) if they have to survive in the society as men (i.e. straight men = masculine men). A heterosexual society is created artificially through applying extensive and intensive external force which is not a one time process --- it has to be continuously applied, because it is up against nature, and nature has a way of asserting itself as soon as the force is weakened or withdrawn. This external force is applied at all the levels of society from the highest macro level to the minutest possible micro level. The sophisticated tools of social governance as well as technolgoy and science help in this in a big way.
This external force may come in the form of explicit social measures through institutions such as religion, science, law, education and the media. These means can be very severe with exrtreme rewards for conforming and equally extreme punishments for not conforming.
This external force may also come in the form of exclusive state support to forces/ lifestyles of heterosexuality and state oppression of focrces of nature that are basically contrary to the very essence of heterosexuality. Or in the form of blockage of facts and information from the general public --- facts that are against the heterosexual ideology. And in the form of misrepresentation of these facts --- especially by the powerful institutions of science. And in the form of false propaganda. And in the form of glorification of fake positive images of heterosexualtioy.
(the current thread is at the same time an assertion of fake power, a reassurance of one's heterosexual identity, mirepresentation of facts and an attempt to marginalise sexual desire of men for men. Although it's an established 'fact' in the heterosexual world that same sex desire happens in marginalised cases, and this 'fact' is also institutionalised into a marginalised, separate 'homosexual' identity, but like I said, you have to continuously keep up the pressure, lest the forces of nature come back to expose your lies.)
But the strongest force --- and this applies only to straight (meaning masculine not heterosexual) men --- comes in extremely
implicit, disguised and subtle forms, especially ---- as gender and sexual roles of men, that men must fulfill in order to have their natural gender (masculinity) acknowledged by the society. And in order to get social power that is so important for straight men. And in order to live socially with other men (and not with feminine males, no offense meant, it’s a question of where one belongs), which is the basic driving force in life amongst all truly stragiht men (and not those who are merely enjoying the status because of unfair codes of heterosexuality).
The Internal pressures are the strongest: By artifically defining what is masculine (straight) and what is feminine (queer) the society has effectively put a great psychological pressue on men --- one that operates from the innermost levels of individuals, and thus unseen on the outside. Thus it's role in determining male sexual behaviour too remains unseen. And therefore the powers of heterosexuality need not acknowldge it at all.
By barring men who 'fail' to 'prove' they are heterosexual from straighthood and thus from the company of other straight men, into a group where straight men don't belong, and which has already been dehumanised for ages (i.e. queer or feminine males), the heterosexual society puts the greatest psychological pressure on men --- scaring them, panicking them into disowning their sexual need for men and forcing themselves to bond with women. The society then showcases this as 'proof' that heterosexualtiy is biological/ natural.
The males today that fiercely claim to be heterosexuals, despise and marginalise male sexual need for men, relate with the heterosexual identity and defend the forces of heterosexualisation are not really the true straight men. They are meterosexual men, but not the positive types. The positive meterosexual or transgendered male is both man and woman. He has the energies of both the genders.
These males are that part of the meterosexual population with an interest in women, who have been given artificial social powers on a platter for centuries – because the societies wanted to 'unnaturally' augment reproduction. They have become addicted to this power, and have started to believe they naturally deserve it. Deep down they know that in a society based on nature and without the external pressures of heterosexuality, they will not be straights. In such a society they do not have enough natural masculinity needed to compete with straight men, especially those that they have condemned today as 'homosexuals' (the fake ones!). In a natural society they will either have to live into the two-spirited and highly respected feminine male group (but they have already lost their positive femininity after living in the straight world for so long!) or live as lesser-men. Therefore, They are not going to give up this power so easily --- especially when they are going great. These males are truly those who are today neither men nor women. In contrast, transgendered, transexual and homoseual men are both men and women in a positive way.
Last edited:
Buddha1 said:
I don't know, you'd have to ask the religion.
Buddha1 said:
Give up on this nonsense will you.
Jan.
Well, you asked for my opinion, so I asked for yours! If you have any morals you will first ensure that the social identity you wear is free from fault before you start going out discussing so-called 'homosexuality'. Does'nt religion teach you anything about morality?Jan Ardena said:
Is nonsense the privilege of 'heterosexuals'! :bugeye:Jan Ardena said:Give up on this nonsense will you.
Buddha1 said:
You have assumed my social identity.
Christianity is a man-made institution.
Homosexuality is same sex sexuality.
Buddha1 said:
The purpose of religion is to cultivate faith in God, it does not teach morals per say, you are expected to be at a certain level of humanity in order to cultivate faith. If you are not, then there are guidlines which, if followed, will bring the adherent to his senses.
Buddha1 said:
No, it is your understanding of hetrosexuals.
Jan.
Going by your anti-homosexual (sic) diatribes I've assumed your social identity to be 'heterosexual'.Jan Ardena said:
By the way 'homosexual' is a social identity just like 'Christianity'. The only difference is that the latter is being enforced by science --- and it is desperately trying to find a base for this social classification --- but it has been miserably unsuccessful so far.
wilofthewisp
Registered Member
By the way 'homosexual' is a social identity just like 'Christianity'. The only difference is that the latter is being enforced by science...
Are you saying Christianity is being enforced by science? If that's what you're saying, then I think you're being naive. Look at the evolution/intelligente design debate. Most scientists do not enforce the belief in a God let alone Christianity. If anything has a scientific endorsement it's homosexuality. Scientists have been presenting it as a biological effect, in other words, with a scientific side to it.
Why is it so bad to be against homosexuality? As long as we do not hurt these people, why can't we openly say that we are against it? It goes against every rule of nature, hinders procreation, focuses more on the superficial reasons for "love," and most of all, God specifically says it is wrong. Why is their free expression defended, and my free expression oppressed?
Are you saying Christianity is being enforced by science? If that's what you're saying, then I think you're being naive. Look at the evolution/intelligente design debate. Most scientists do not enforce the belief in a God let alone Christianity. If anything has a scientific endorsement it's homosexuality. Scientists have been presenting it as a biological effect, in other words, with a scientific side to it.
Why is it so bad to be against homosexuality? As long as we do not hurt these people, why can't we openly say that we are against it? It goes against every rule of nature, hinders procreation, focuses more on the superficial reasons for "love," and most of all, God specifically says it is wrong. Why is their free expression defended, and my free expression oppressed?
because you want to demonize others behaviour which is doing no harm. how can twp people of same sex lovn, havin sex, be doing harm?wilofthewisp said:
when you go gainst it you are doing violence. you add to the potential violence being commited against people who are Gay.
i suggest you make frinds witsomeone who is Gay. get to know them and see how their characters are not stereotypes you've been fed by negative sources you may read, see, hear. thy is human just like you, ith feelings etc
what would ou sooner see. two men blastin fuk outta each other in war, one torturing an other, or two males makin love?
this is a serious question. if you D prefer the formers, please explain in detail why.
Q
Qorl
Guest
Lesbians are cool.
Qorl said:
All lesbians? Geez, I know several and some of them are so ugly and dumpy and fat and stupid that it's amazing to see all that stuffed into one human body!!
Now, on the other hand, I know one lesbian who is truly the sweetest, nicest, kindest, prettiest, sexiest person on the Earth.
"All" of anything or any people or any animal or any.....whatever, is a damned silly thing to say, implied or to type on a post.
Baron Max
Because it's bigoted and closed-minded.wilofthewisp said:
Ah, but being against it does hurt them, emotionally.
If the dick fits...
And that's a bad thing? There are too many people on the planet.
As if heterosexuality doesn't?
I think history has proven multiple times over that, if god exists at all, he's a dickhead and far from infallible.
Because you're a moron.
Buddha1 said:
I have never met such a text in the Bible. Therefore, the documented proof must come outside of religion, which makes it highly unlikely that it has a solid basis. The reason I am saying this is because I have realized how "proofs" such as these are constructed in order to serve certain agentas.
Personally, I despise homosexuality, although I once had a homosexual friend. But I recognize it as something natural.
I despise homosexuality simply because it breaks down my mental model of the order of the universe. Men are supposed to be strong, proud, warriors. Homosexuals do not seem to have those qualities, and therefore they "prove" that my mental model is wrong.
But I recognize that my mental model of the order of the universe is something that I have made up in my mind, in order to make me feel more secure. I see that, in nature, most animals have a male and a female sex. But there are animals with both genders! I see that people can be beautiful, but ugly as well. I see that nature is wonderful, but there are poisonous snakes in it...so there is not really an order, it is just something I have made up myself.
Once upon a time, at the age of 18, when I moved to the college campus, I made a homosexual friend. We were close friends for six months, until he made a move on me. Then we stopped being friends, because I could not stand the thought of having a relationship with another guy. Which is a shame really, because he was a good person, very intelligent, always smiling with a good sense of humour, generous, and very little self-centered. Beneath that smile though, there was big disappoinment, big frustration, big anger, towards what he has become. He almost hated himself, and he was close to being depressed. I remember he always expressed fears for the future, especially for things that required himself to live close to other males (army service, for example).
Isn't it a shame that these people feel that way? it is almost a crime. Let them be what they want. They are the masters of their own existence. We have no right whatsoever to judge them, and if God exists, it is his job to judge them, not ours. What they do does not harm us or anyone else.
Personally I feel that homosexuality is a physical state. After lots of thinking, reading, discussing and observing others, I have come to the conclusion that homosexuals are built that way: their appearance is almost male, but their inner workings are mostly female. Homosexuals are a "failure" of nature to "honour" the order of the universe I said earlier... I have come to tell homosexuals from the first encounter. I bet that their inner workings, the way they receive and process signals, are closer to a female than to a male...in other words, it is a construction problem, which affects them totally from top to bottom and from inside to outside, and thus it can not be avoided or changed.
There is no documented proof of Buddha having existed ever either.Hapsburg said:
That is not how the old world worked, and that is no reason to dismiss a past event, if there are enough evidences that point otherwise. But science as a method may not be enough to know what happened in the past. You may also have to look at things like the basics of human nature which remain the same in all ages and all places.