Jump to content

Gay is not norrmal


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So not only is gay's sexual behavior abnormal, but so is their social behavior.

Weird.

Frankly, I'm tired of the whole thing. All I can say is: "Next"

I do not want to persecute gays in any way. I think the movement to overly accept and "normalize" gayness is political correctness run amock. Once, we were a society where certain lines must not be publicly crossed. We need to return to that kind of civil society.

Ultimately, a free-for-all and anarchy, whether political or moral, are antithetical to freedom, which demands discipline and some consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want to persecute gays in any way. I think the movement to overly accept and "normalize" gayness is political correctness run amock. Once, we were a society where certain lines must not be publicly crossed. We need to return to that kind of civil society.

Ultimately, a free-for-all and anarchy, whether political or moral, are antithetical to freedom, which demands discipline and some consensus.

Freedom can be compatible to a return in the past but only if one wants to better actualize missed opportunities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom can be compatible to a return in the past but only if one wants to better actualize missed opportunities.

I'm a bit dense. Please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, we have come full circle in this thread already?

Whether or not you think we are animals, Sabre, nature is not and should not be a template for what constitutes healthy behavior. I'll add a couple more nuggets for you, in nature, dogs eat their own vomit. Also in nature, the weak and young get killed off. I notice that we frown upon that behavior in our societies, how about you?

Nature is the template whether you think it is or not. Simply because we are a part of nature. Oh about the vomit thing... reminds me of some Japanese and German sex vids I have seen.

The weak get killed off or let to die, because they wont have a strong contribution to the species. The young get killed because of another animal is hungry (the weak and young are also easy prey)

The reason we don't kill our weak or young, goes much deeper. We can think, we are concious and we can make things better. We are the dominant animal on this planet. I also see our weak and young getting killed. Buy ourselves. But even the weak can contribute to our society because we have domesticated the planet for the most part to suit our purposes. A cripple still has a brain and might be the next Stephen Hawking. So there is one reason we don't kill them. Although it does take a lot of money to raise a disabled child (no matter what the diability is). Who knows we might be able to find the cure one day.

Nature = natural. Anything else is intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In human nature they kill the young not because they want to eat them - They only kill the potentially strong young - who will compete with those in charge - it's more effecient to either abort the competator before they arrive - or once they have arrived burn off their cerebral cortex with Ritalin - and other drugs that stunt the growth of the person - artifically creating those of less stature than the powers that rule - It would be find if there really was such a thing as natural social Darwinism - but there is not - there is simply clever raiding of other groups and individuals - and damaging them or indirectly killing them - this should be called Darwinian genocide...It has nothing to do with survival of the fittest - but survival of the worst and the weakest who practice evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We fit all the established biological criteria of being "animals".....to think otherwise is to place us upon a pedestal we do not deserve.

(freely pinch from another site)

[1] Bacteria - prokaryotic, single-celled organisms. We're not prokaryotic, so we're not bacteria.

[2] Protista - eukaryotic, single-celled organisms. We're multicellular, so we're not protists.

[3] Fungi - we are motile, we do not have a chitin cell wall, and we do not reproduce by spores, so we're not fungi.

[4] Plantae - we are motile, we do not have a cellulose cell wall, and we do not obtain our energy by photosymthesis, so we're not plants.

[5] Animalia - we are motile, and we are consumers, digesting food internally. So we are animals.

If you leave it at that then I understand your equation.

You could add:

[6]Homo Sapiens

We attempt to adapt our environment to ourselves. Let's not get into the argument of whether or not we do a good job.

The reason - perhaps, species become extinct is that they cannot adapt to major changes in the environment.

They have no means to make adjustments in their ways of living. That some genetic changes occur means they have some ability to adapt themselves to the environment but not the environment to themselves.

You could probably think of some other differences, besides the "we don't eat our own poo" argument, on your own.

I do not understand your opening statement that thinking otherwise than we are animals places us on a pedestal we do not deserve. Where did that come from. Obviuosly you did not make that up but you believe it.

It isn't a question of being on a pedestal it is a question of noting there is a difference. There does seem to be a concerted effort to blur any differences or make them insignificant by some but if you look with your own eyes you should notice there does seem to be a difference - and it is significant! The more you look the more it becomes apparent.

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In human nature they kill the young not because they want to eat them - They only kill the potentially strong young - who will compete with those in charge - it's more effecient to either abort the competator before they arrive - or once they have arrived burn off their cerebral cortex with Ritalin - and other drugs that stunt the growth of the person - artifically creating those of less stature than the powers that rule - It would be find if there really was such a thing as natural social Darwinism - but there is not - there is simply clever raiding of other groups and individuals - and damaging them or indirectly killing them - this should be called Darwinian genocide...It has nothing to do with survival of the fittest - but survival of the worst and the weakest who practice evil.

It is why nice guys finish last.

We can succumb to evil for our own ends but if we truly love life we will destroy ourselves first.

Some observe competition to be evil, and indeed JD Rockefeller said that exact thing. "The greatest sin is competition." He came up with this conclusion because he never played fair and he couldn't have accumulated the wealth he did if he had played fair. Competition actually helps us to excel. Their are many good outcomes of competition and even losers should consider it is probably in their best interests to either improve or do something else. Sometimes, not easily experienced, and hard to overcome failure, but it is the stuff of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are vast differences in the sex lives (activities, terms of relationships, and otherwise) among heterosexuals alone. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not black and white concepts... I don't really understand why today we see ourselves as being either one or the other.

Exactly, and neither do I. It seems more a matter of politics and power than anything about human nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As sexual beings as apposed to asexual beings, our sexuality is hard wired into our very being, or in other words, our desire to reproduce ourselves is set deep within our genetic code. That is the basic nature of all sexual beings, to seek out a partner to have sexual relationships with in order to reproduce. That some prefer to have relationships with those of the same gender is neither here nor there, the basic drive or desire is still there.

Ah, I get you now; and yes, I agree. However, while scientific developments have already made it easier for people to chose certain paths that they are more emotionally comfortable with, and may in future make it more so, I doubt that science will alter our ingrained drives all that much. No matter what we think we want, and thus no matter in what way we exercise our instinctual urges, it would take millennia to devolve that instinct to reproduce.

I certainly don't think anyone should be considered less than a human being based on their sexual preferences. But, I do often question the way in which some people arrived at their decided choice, and why some amongst them are so adamant - often to the point of willful, defended ignorance - to maintain illogical reasoning and/or excuses for why they are they way they are. Thus, given the above basic facts about our hard-wired sexuality, I find the so often regurgitated "I was born this way" assertion (excuse?) to be highly suspect; in the same way that claims of 100% heterosexuality are greeted with a raised eyebrow from me, seeing as how a) curious we are as a species, and B) driven we humans are for physical pleasure, and such is not the sole domain of opposite gender couplings.

But, ultimately you're right, preaching of right and wrong, especially that which is based on no more than personal moral beliefs, is arrogant and tedious at best. The thing is, though, that such a criticism applies to people from both camps in the sexuality wars; sometimes the Gay Community should be told to get bent as much as the homophobes deserve to. Not that my opinions, as such, gain me many friends from either side.

[ed. to disable emoticons]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you leave it at that then I understand your equation.

You could add:

[6]Homo Sapiens

We attempt to adapt our environment to ourselves. Let's not get into the argument of whether or not we do a good job.

The reason - perhaps, species become extinct is that they cannot adapt to major changes in the environment.

They have no means to make adjustments in their ways of living. That some genetic changes occur means they have some ability to adapt themselves to the environment but not the environment to themselves.

You could probably think of some other differences, besides the "we don't eat our own poo" argument, on your own.

I do not understand your opening statement that thinking otherwise than we are animals places us on a pedestal we do not deserve. Where did that come from. Obviuosly you did not make that up but you believe it.

It isn't a question of being on a pedestal it is a question of noting there is a difference. There does seem to be a concerted effort to blur any differences or make them insignificant by some but if you look with your own eyes you should notice there does seem to be a difference - and it is significant! The more you look the more it becomes apparent.

Sorry Pliny, but Homo S are nothing more but a subset of of the mammalian branch of the Animalia family. And we are not the only rationalizing/problem solving animal on the planet. Even crows have been proven to use tools to solve a problem. To think that we as a species are any better or more deserving then any other species is just pure vanity on our part.

Others here say we are better because we as a rule don't eat our own "poo". True enough, however we do seem to make a habit of shitting in our own nest so to speak with great glee and wide abandonment. I live in the Vancouver area, and looking at the haze and dingy brown stain that is the air we have here sometimes while traveling via BC Ferry's to the Island really drives that point home. Plus I would have to a gnat's whisker away from dying of thirst before I would ever contemplate taking a sip out of the Fraser River, we've just dumped way too much shit into it over the past century and a bit.

Also, Homo S is just about the only species known that kills not only other animals for fun, but also each other. Wild Chimps and few other higher primates are known to go to "war" with each other and some species of Dolphins have been seen attacking and killing smaller species of Dolphins for what appears to be sport. Funny how its the so-called higher intelligent species of animals, which includes us hairless apes that engage in such activities.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps we should not consider ourselves to be animals, for it would seem such an association is a blatant insult.................................to the animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Homo S is just about the only species known that kills not only other animals for fun, but also each other. Wild Chimps and few other higher primates are known to go to "war" with each other and some species of Dolphins have been seen attacking and killing smaller species of Dolphins for what appears to be sport. Funny how its the so-called higher intelligent species of animals, which includes us hairless apes that engage in such activities.

Let alone homosexuality, saying that pedophilia is not normal is very problematic because humans ("hairless apes") are primate fetuses who have become sexually able to reproduce themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Pliny, but Homo S are nothing more but a subset of of the mammalian branch of the Animalia family. And we are not the only rationalizing/problem solving animal on the planet. Even crows have been proven to use tools to solve a problem. To think that we as a species are any better or more deserving then any other species is just pure vanity on our part.

Others here say we are better because we as a rule don't eat our own "poo". True enough, however we do seem to make a habit of shitting in our own nest so to speak with great glee and wide abandonment. I live in the Vancouver area, and looking at the haze and dingy brown stain that is the air we have here sometimes while traveling via BC Ferry's to the Island really drives that point home. Plus I would have to a gnat's whisker away from dying of thirst before I would ever contemplate taking a sip out of the Fraser River, we've just dumped way too much shit into it over the past century and a bit.

Also, Homo S is just about the only species known that kills not only other animals for fun, but also each other. Wild Chimps and few other higher primates are known to go to "war" with each other and some species of Dolphins have been seen attacking and killing smaller species of Dolphins for what appears to be sport. Funny how its the so-called higher intelligent species of animals, which includes us hairless apes that engage in such activities.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps we should not consider ourselves to be animals, for it would seem such an association is a blatant insult.................................to the animals.

You didn't tackle the fact that we are the only species that adapts the environment to themselves.

I would expect an animal to use an opposable thumb if it had one, such as apes do, or to know where to return to or what activity gained it sustenance, as animal experiments and observation shows and how they use their bodies to sustain themselves, such as their beaks or claws or teeth. Or that some animals run in packs and some don't. Or some rudimentary tool is used to get food. I have not seen them build or dam, or even a retaining wall, heat their homes in winter or cool them down in summer or cultivate crops or farm cattle or treat sewage.

I mentioned that I did not want to get into a discussion about how well we were doing environmentally but you did bring that up as though, because we are far from perfect, that makes us the same as animals. You also didn't mention you had observed any difference between animals and homo sapiens. I suggest that perhaps a little personal observation without preconceived notions could be of benefit to you. It is a wonderful thing to just look without telling yourself what you must be looking at before you do.

Is the attitude towards humanity to be one of disdain? Are we supposed to consider ourselves an insult to the animal kingdom? I must say, I do find the concept of humanity as being something less than an animal common among social progressives and secular humanists. You don't need to apologize for your contempt of humanity. I too see iniquities and inequities and our shortcomings but I see far more. The beauty that is mankind and his accomplishments. A bright future with lots to learn about ourselves and our relationship with the universe. Certainly, there is every possibility we will destroy ourselves but I don't see contempt helping our cause.

It is ok for you to believe we are just another animal species but I ask again to take a second look and see if there is maybe some difference you may have noticed. And isn't labeling ourselves animals just an excuse for some of our worst behaviors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget about the animal kingdom to learn something about sexual normality. A saver place to start is the relationship between Adolf Schicklgruber and Angelika Raubal.

I am not an animal benny - nor are you - I think? Sex is the bond that is supposed to be marrigae - it's primary reason for existance is to make more of us - any other use of sex is pleasure - like food - beer - dope - etc..there are some men that look upon having sex or a woman as a bottle of beer..and there are woman who look upon it as some form of control over the monkey man the desire so much to have as a pet....what is NORMAL is that moment when both partners orgasm - and KNOW that moment that conception has taken place - that is sex..in it's most fullest degree of normalacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget about the animal kingdom to learn something about sexual normality. A saver place to start is the relationship between Adolf Schicklgruber and Angelika Raubal.

Humans are animals, and are part of the animal kingdom, more specifically we are primates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

A human is a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae (taxonomically Homo sapiens—Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man").[2][3] DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated in east Africa about 200,000 years ago.

Since every population of primates (apes, gorillas, humans, chimps, ect ect) has a number of 'gays' I would say it is not normal compared to the overall population of the species. However, I will say it is normal considering every primate species has 'gay' members as well.

So if you want to learn about sexual normality, the human species is one of the few that has sex for pleasure and not just procreation. So you would want to learn about normality which is the rest of life on this planet.

If you forget about the animal kingdom, then you can't begin to even classify human gayness as being not normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes we are related to monkeys - in fact all animated matter (life forms) are related to each other - and yes we are animals - and we are also angels - it's a choice on how much part animal you want to be - and how much part devine - those that are strickly animals are boring ...and do not aspire to anything higher than a dog or monkey - It's lazy cop out to say we are JUST animals - when we do cop out and submit to total animal hood - something happens - we become LESS than animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes we are related to monkeys - in fact all animated matter (life forms) are related to each other - and yes we are animals - and we are also angels - it's a choice on how much part animal you want to be - and how much part devine - those that are strickly animals are boring ...and do not aspire to anything higher than a dog or monkey - It's lazy cop out to say we are JUST animals - when we do cop out and submit to total animal hood - something happens - we become LESS than animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes we are related to monkeys - in fact all animated matter (life forms) are related to each other - and yes we are animals - and we are also angels - it's a choice on how much part animal you want to be - and how much part devine - those that are strickly animals are boring ...and do not aspire to anything higher than a dog or monkey - It's lazy cop out to say we are JUST animals - when we do cop out and submit to total animal hood - something happens - we become LESS than animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...