homosexuality

Buddha1 said:
There is no documented proof of Buddha having existed ever either.

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.
Click to expand...
Actually, there's a quite a bit of documented evidence of the Buddha's existence. However, the Romans had no records of a man named "Jesus". None.
 
Hapsburg said:
Actually, there's a quite a bit of documented evidence of the Buddha's existence. However, the Romans had no records of a man named "Jesus". None.
Click to expand...
If this can historically be proven then it would be really interesting. I'd be disappointed though.

By the way, I think the teachings of Buddha were written down about 300 years after his death. India had no tradition of docuementing events or people in those days.
 
Hapsburg said:
Actually, there's a quite a bit of documented evidence of the Buddha's existence. However, the Romans had no records of a man named "Jesus". None.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: You da man.
 
Buddha1 said:
If this can historically be proven then it would be really interesting. I'd be disappointed though.

By the way, I think the teachings of Buddha were written down about 300 years after his death. India had no tradition of docuementing events or people in those days.
Click to expand...

So, you're denying your namesake?
 
Hapsburg said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
Click to expand...
This link clearly says that the existence of Buddha cannot be historically verified:

"Few of the details of the Buddha's life can be independently verified, and it is difficult to determine what is history and what is myth. Therefore this article will describe the life of Siddhartha Gautama as told in the earliest available Buddhist texts."

It also says:
"Gautama is the key figure in Buddhism, and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules were summarized after his death and memorized by the sangha. Passed down by oral tradition, the Tripitaka was committed to writing about four hundred years later."

The above is not different from the life of Jesus, whose accounts/ teachings as claimed by Christianity too were written about 300 years after his death. However, in the case of Jesus too, Gnostics had been following his teachings and had kept alive the details of his life through an oral tradition.

Only Jesus Christ was unlucky (or should we say that we were unlucky) that 'Christianity' appropriated Jesus and distorted his life and teachings.
 
Buddha1 said:
However, in the case of Jesus too, Gnostics had been following his teachings and had kept alive the details of his life through an oral tradition.
Click to expand...
It seems that a group of people must have deliberately wanted to exploit the faith that people had in spirituality, and so they chose the most common spiritual sect, took its 'prophet', distorted his life and teachings, persecuted the original and the real followers of that 'prophet' and established a new religion.
 
Non-Logical-Idea-Guy said:
hey guys,

Maybe god intended for humans to be homosexual so that we didn't reproduce so we didn't advance and damage the world and/or we were the test batch

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

All gods are imaginary, mythological beings.

Human sexuality is more complex than you allow.
 
How are men made heterosexual?

When you cut off someone's right hand from childhood the person will learn to use his left hand and think its the most natural thing to do and become too heavily dependant on it --- never realising for a while that he was supposed to use his lost hand!

Cut every child's right hand and tell them its a disgrace/ sin to have a right hand, they will grow up thanking god for not having a right hand.

That is how heterosexuality works. By cutting off people's capability to bond sexually with their own kind --- the primary sexual inclination of human beings. Thus the men become compeletly dependant on women for sexual and emotional needs.
 
When so many men have a sexual need for men, what makes some men accept their need and be comfortable with it as 'gay' men, and others to hide them, or indulge in them secretly or suppress them or become hostile to them?

There answers to it.

One reason, and the biggest reason is biological gender. Feminine gendered men find solace in the 'gay' identity, and even otherwise, the society accepts sexual feelings for men if it is accompanied by a feminine gender. It just fits in the social mechanism for men's oppression.

Masculine gendered men on the other hand find it difficult to express or accept their sexual feelings for men, because the society has no place for their masculine gender along with their sexual feelings for them. They are supposed to make a choice, and the choice in most cases is their masculine gender.

Except in some cases, which is the second reason why some men are able to accept their sexual feelings, despite the hostilities. This is when an otherwise masculine gendered man has experienced sex with a man in his childhood/ adolescence (what the society calls sexual abuse) --- i.e. before a social hatred or fear of his sexual feelings for men has been formed.

If he has done that it becomes difficult for him to forget the pleasant/ positive experience which gives him the motives or inspiration to fight off social pressures or to adjust to them by leading a double life.
 
Buddha1 said:
How are men made heterosexual?

When you cut off someone's right hand from childhood the person will learn to use his left hand and think its the most natural thing to do and become too heavily dependant on it --- never realising for a while that he was supposed to use his lost hand!

Cut every child's right hand and tell them its a disgrace/ sin to have a right hand, they will grow up thanking god for not having a right hand.

That is how heterosexuality works. By cutting off people's capability to bond sexually with their own kind --- the primary sexual inclination of human beings. Thus the men become compeletly dependant on women for sexual and emotional needs.
Click to expand...

In this case, nothing has been cut off. Men can work with other men that which is unseemly, but the right hand will never grow back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top