»Homosexuality is a malfunction«

Okay, the whole point of sexuality(from an animalistic, darwinian perspective) is to reproduce that is why straight men find women attractive and straight women find men attractive. It serves a purpose. Just like a male plug goes into a female socket. It's nature... So being homosexual is against nature. But so is having sex straight with a condom on(or any birth control), but the motivation of the straight sex without the condom on still fits in with nature's perogative. So I guess the real question is maybe this homosexual issue is created out of humanities self-induced seperation from nature.

I forget where I read it, or who wrote it, but someone suggested that homosexuality is an advanced form of narcissism. Where a man or women feels so passionate about themselves being "it" that they regard anything not like them to be below them. As in the opposite sex... So by this motivation, a gay having sex with a member of the opposite sex would be below him. It's weird and most likely not true, but I read it somewhere.

I don't know, I'm straight and it makes sense to me why I'm straight... So someday I can reproduce. Homosexuality while maybe not a problem, seems to be some sort of malfunction.

posted by Evil Elvis Bush

in-my-opinion.org -> Girls and Boys, Body & Health, Food & Diet, Home & Garden -> Diets, Medicine, Food, Body, Workout, Sexuality -> Homosexuality is a malfunction

I meant to say, having straight sex with a condom on still fits nature's perogative.

posted by Evil Elvis Bush

Re: It's simple...

Evil Elvis Bush:

That is the oldest argument in the book, and also easily refuted:
How many times maximum can the average sexually active woman bear a child in her life: 20?
And how many times minimum will the average sexually active woman have sex: 1000?
So the average woman will have sex many more times than she can bear a child. Why is she doing it so many more times than is "necessary"? Is she just delusional and sick? Or is it not more likely the case that consensual sex between humans is a pair bonding mechanism, enhancing the family and social structures?
I am all for a Darwinian social philosophy, but really human sexuality has very little to do with reproduction, and hasn't ever since the modern human species began. Reproduction in humans is more based on child-rearing and economic factors than just insemination.

Evil Elvis Bush:

I forget where I read it, or who wrote it, but someone suggested that homosexuality is an advanced form of narcissism. Where a man or women feels so passionate about themselves being "it" that they regard anything not like them to be below them. As in the opposite sex... So by this motivation, a gay having sex with a member of the opposite sex would be below him. It's weird and most likely not true, but I read it somewhere.

Did you read it in a Bible tract against gays? Because that's about the level of psychological knowledge that theory implies.

posted by holy_of_holies

Addendum

Also, I want to add that there are many ways to have heterosexual sex, but only one of them can lead to pregnancy. That doesn't mean there's anything unnatural about other ways of having sex!

posted by holy_of_holies

I know what you're getting at... But you misinterpreted me.

Okay, before I continue down this argument let me state a couple of things.

a.) sexual feelings occur at a subconscious level... Let's use Darwin as an example. Darwin sees a women who arouses such feelings within him. They occur at a level where he is unconscious of them... He doesn't "try" to be attracted to this woman, he just is. That doesn't seem like a conscious choice.

b.) Now, wearing a condom, using birthcontrol or any other method of "unnatural sex" are all conscious choices. Where as you have a harder time controlling your arousal than putting a condom on. You get an erection, you don't consciously put one on. You see what I'm getting at?

What I'm merely stating is that the whole subconscious thought or rather urge, process in a straight male... Is dictated by nature. His animal brain sees her as a suitable mate, which manifests in your conscious mind(Oh, her eyes, her hair... You begin to recognize these things which turn you on. Yada, yada, yada.)

So what I'm saying is these subconscious urges, so to speak are hardwired into your survival instincts as much as you wanting to get your swerve on. Infact, your subconscious mind working off of instinct, thought of it first for your conscious mind to even realize it.

So the question now becomes... Are homosexuals just ignoring their animal instinct? Or is it being misinterpreted, or for whatever reason maybe their animal brains are "wired" differently? Or maybe it works both ways, the conscious mind plays as much role as the subconscious in determining if a mate fits your personal requirements. Like I consciously to decide to like girls with redhair, instead of being told by instinct, the instinct part just tells me I like girls.

I'm not sure, but one thing I am sure of is in biology... One of the fundamental laws of life deals with reproduction, which is something that is hardwired into our brains via instinct. So, the chain of events that occur within my body to make me interested in a particular mate are totally different from the conscious choices I make which prevent me from successfully reproducing. I am only aware of the fact that I am horny, which is instinct's way of saying: "Spread your seed." So condom or no condom... The urge is there for the reason of reproduction. That's the whole point of it.

So, somewhere along the line the homosexuals hardwiring either got messed up or was changed. Either in birth or in life, or maybe by choice. I don't know. But my argument of it being from a purely biological standpoint some sort of malfunction.

posted by Evil Elvis Bush

Re: I know what you're getting at... But you misinterpreted

Evil Elvis Bush:

So, somewhere along the line the homosexuals hardwiring either got messed up or was changed. Either in birth or in life, or maybe by choice. I don't know. But my argument of it being from a purely biological standpoint some sort of malfunction.

I agree.
Though it's definitely not always the result of malfunction, especially nower days when it's "cool" to be gay. After the introducing, the 1st question that most homosexuals ask from each other on a date is: "Since how long are you gay?". I know this sounds strange or funny, but many homos get their hearts broken by ppl, who think they're gays, but not sure about it, so they look at the whole gay-relationship thing as a game.
Also ppl are naturally curious, some of us just want to try new things out & accidently they become so happy in their homosexual relationsips that they "stay" gays.
& then there're the sexual issues: you just can't get an orgasm with a woman, so you try it with a man & it's possible that you become gay b/c you've a better love-life with a guy.
There're also certain environments (like: prisons, boarding schools, etc.), where you only meet same sexed ppl for years & if you become old enough to have sexual needs these are the 3 choices you have:
1. you don't have sex
2. you "help yourself"
3. you become a homo

posted by a

"What does not destroy me, makes me stronger" Friedrich Nietzsche

Evil Elvis Bush:

homosexuality is an advanced form of narcissism. Where a man or women feels so passionate about themselves being "it" that they regard anything not like them to be below them. As in the opposite sex... So by this motivation, a gay having sex with a member of the opposite sex would be below him.

On a sidenote:

Whenever I read such arguments ("Gays are gay because they XXX") I wonder whether this statement has been re-evaluated for heteros:

Gays are gays because they consider women as below them.
Heteros are hetero because they consider women as equal.

This statement is obviously not true for heteros thus it shouldn't be true for gays.

"Gays are gay because they chose to." Is that true? Well, let's examine the hetero part: "Heteros are hetero because they chose to"

posted by knn

ebooks-download.com

knn:

"Gays are gay because they chose to." Is that true? Well, let's examine the hetero part: "Heteros are hetero because they chose to"

Not at all, i know some ppl who are only heteros b/c they're scared of what their community would say if they'd "come out", so they rather not date at all, then be gays. I think those ppl do have the "homosexual malfunction", but they choose the be heteros who never have sex = asexuals.

posted by a

Re: I know what you're getting at... But you misinterpreted

Evil Elvis Bush:

I know what you're getting at... But you misinterpreted me

Sorry if I misinterpreted.

Evil Elvis Bush:

a.) sexual feelings occur at a subconscious level... Let's use Darwin as an example. Darwin sees a women who arouses such feelings within him. They occur at a level where he is unconscious of them... He doesn't "try" to be attracted to this woman, he just is. That doesn't seem like a conscious choice.

But EEB there isn't any proof that the subsconscious exists. The subsonscious was invented by Sigmund Freud to explain phenomena he didn't understand such as dreams, slips of the tongue, and the like. Sexual attraction could as easily be explained as deriving from memory (experience) and a social instinct that recognizes gender by sense cues.

Evil Elvis Bush:

b.) Now, wearing a condom, using birthcontrol or any other method of "unnatural sex" are all conscious choices. Where as you have a harder time controlling your arousal than putting a condom on. You get an erection, you don't consciously put one on. You see what I'm getting at?

Sure.

Evil Elvis Bush:

What I'm merely stating is that the whole subconscious thought or rather urge, process in a straight male... Is dictated by nature. His animal brain sees her as a suitable mate, which manifests in your conscious mind(Oh, her eyes, her hair... You begin to recognize these things which turn you on. Yada, yada, yada.)

So what I'm saying is these subconscious urges, so to speak are hardwired into your survival instincts as much as you wanting to get your swerve on. Infact, your subconscious mind working off of instinct, thought of it first for your conscious mind to even realize it

.
Again, you're conflating "instinct" and "the subconscious." There really isn't any proof that the subconscious exists, much less that it is responsible for instinct. Instinct is incredibly complex, as is the brain itself. It is not yet fully understood on a neurologic level; this is the reason people have been so quick to adopt the unproven idea of the subconscious. It fills the void, like Genesis.

Evil Elvis Bush:

So the question now becomes... Are homosexuals just ignoring their animal instinct? Or is it being misinterpreted, or for whatever reason maybe their animal brains are "wired" differently? Or maybe it works both ways, the conscious mind plays as much role as the subconscious in determining if a mate fits your personal requirements. Like I consciously to decide to like girls with redhair, instead of being told by instinct, the instinct part just tells me I like girls.

The subconscious thing still bothers me. My guess is it's not real. But I see that's not your point in this paragraph.

Evil Elvis Bush:

I'm not sure, but one thing I am sure of is in biology... One of the fundamental laws of life deals with reproduction, which is something that is hardwired into our brains via instinct. So, the chain of events that occur within my body to make me interested in a particular mate are totally different from the conscious choices I make which prevent me from successfully reproducing. I am only aware of the fact that I am horny, which is instinct's way of saying: "Spread your seed." So condom or no condom... The urge is there for the reason of reproduction. That's the whole point of it.

That may be the origin of the sex instinct in evolutionary history, but there's no law in biology that says an adaptation can't switch functions completely and do something else than it originally did. In fact this is extremely common (for example, fins becoming feet).

Evil Elvis Bush:

I still don't see any evidence or reason to think that. From a "purely biological standpoint," the best indicator of the excellence of your functioning is how well you pass on your genes. Gays and lesbians can pass on their genes and make children like the rest of us in numerous ways, and do so all the time. Artificially enhancing ones reproductive output is not unnatural.
Let me give you an example from my reading. Genghis Khan (1162-1227) was a Monogolian warlord who conquered the largest contiguous empire in history. A few years back, a genetic survey was done on people in the regions he conquered which indicated that a cluster of differences on the Y-chromosome (the genes that make us male) was present in 1/12 of the population of those regions. Through extrapolating backward (by mutation rates), it was found that the differences first appeared in a single male who lived at a time around the birth of Genghis Khan. By this measure, it was estimated that over 0.5% of the world's current population are descended from this male. Now Genghis was known to have at least 500 girlfriends ( White laugh

) meaning he probably would have had a great number of children around his empire. So the theory goes that it is possible that 0.5% of the world's people are descended from Genghis Khan.
What does this have to do with gays and biological success? Simple. If you tell me that homosexuality is a malfunction, then I have to ask you: couldn't a gay male in the present day father even more children, and more descendants, than Genghis Khan? Sure he could. That's what sperm banks, surrogate mothers, and artificial fertilization are for! That empire and those 500 girlfriends were Genghis's sperm bank and his way of artificially enhancing the number of children he fathered. And a gay male world conqueror could do exactly the same thing.

Only difference is, instead of massacring whole villages like Genghis, the gay conqueror would redecorate them! White laugh

posted by holy_of_holies

Not at all, i know some ppl who are only heteros b/c they're scared of what their community would say if they'd "come out",

Then they are not heteros thus my statement doesn't apply.

posted by knn

knn:

Then they are not heteros thus my statement doesn't apply.

This is part of the point I was raising on my ice cream post:

IMO → Will there be homosexuals in the future?

Tiefling:

It's my choice to eat chocolate ice cream. Is it my choice to prefer chocolate ice cream? If I have never tasted chocolate ice cream, how can I say whether or not I prefer it over vanilla ice cream? But do I become a Chocolate Ice Cream Eater the first taste I have of chocolate ice cream, or when I realize I prefer chocolate ice cream, or not until I decide to eat chocolate ice cream at the exclusion of vanilla ice cream?

At what point can a person be counted a homosexual? If a person calls himself a homosexual but is still "in the closet," then is he a homosexual or not?

a's describing people who live heterosexual lives out of fear, but given a choice would prefer homosexual lives. Is it a matter of what the person prefers, or how the person acts?

posted by Tiefling

Evil Elvis Bush:

So the question now becomes... Are homosexuals just ignoring their animal instinct? Or is it being misinterpreted, or for whatever reason maybe their animal brains are "wired" differently?

Rephrasing the question doesn't affect h_o_h's response, though:

h_o_h:

How many times maximum can the average sexually active woman bear a child in her life: 20?
And how many times minimum will the average sexually active woman have sex: 1000?
So the average woman will have sex many more times than she can bear a child. Why is she doing it so many more times than is "necessary"? Is she just delusional and sick?

When a man and a woman choose to use birth control, are they just ignoring their animal instincts? Or are their instincts being misinterpreted? For whatever reason, are the brains of the man and the woman "wired" differently due to their use of a condom?

Evil Elvis Bush:

I am only aware of the fact that I am horny, which is instinct's way of saying: "Spread your seed." So condom or no condom... The urge is there for the reason of reproduction. That's the whole point of it.

Humans (generally) don't feel the urge to have children. We feel the urge to have sex, because sex produces pleasure. Usually, when humans are having sex with the intention of having children, it's a conscious decision, not the response to an urge. It's usually not, "Man, I want to have kids, who/how can I get knocked up?" Being horny (almost always) means, "I want pleasure, how can I get laid?"

An organism does not act to further evolution. Evolution occurs because of how organisms act. This is an important distinction. An organism who develops some trait that makes it a more viable specimen doesn't think to itself, "Well I'd better start screwing so I can pass on this cool trait." However, because the organism is more viable, it will have more opportunities to pass on its trait.

posted by Tiefling

Heh I was just thinking... I came from a place with a high lesbian population, and some of them had kids, like 17 year old sons and daughters (mostly heteros) but how depressing would it be to a guys character... that his wife left him and became a lesbian? That really doesn't say much for him... hah but I sort of agree with the theory that everyone's partially homosexual... like some people are more so than others, like bisexuals are straight down the middle, then you have people that are only slightly on each side of the line, then you have the extreme lefts and rights. I just accept it as it being there for some people, and others barely having it so that it's not even noticeable to any level (heteros safe with their sexuality.) Explaining it is sort of like trying to explain why people have different opinions (like a meat eater trying to comprehend the logic of a vegetarian or comprehending the mind of a killer with no regrets.)

I am hetero, and I find it hard trying to figure how even women find men attractive... but I have enough problems with women that make me confused as hell... Trying to say homosexuals are weird is strange to me when I think how strange even just relationships with women can be, people just use the whole 'reproduction' function as an excuse to say homosexuals are strange because we 'don't understand it'. Christ, I can barely understand relationships with women. So much fucking confusion and tediousness...

In the end, people are people, it all just comes down to who you are, what you make of yourself and the choices you make. Confusion comes with any relationship, but something beyond friendship will always be more confusing just because of the extra levels, regardless of sexuality.

I think everything would simplified if it just became "everyone's a person, everyone's equal, but if this type of person and this type of person have sex they can have a child" "wow how peculiar." But then world would be completely different aaaaand uninteresting to most peoples current set type of mind.

posted by hungarian kid

Weiter, weiter ins Verderben!
Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben!

Tiefling:

By the way: This applies also to shaving.

THERE ARE NO SHAVERS IN NATURE.

Thus shaving your beard off is
a) a malfunction
b) misinterpreting nature
c) a perversion of a healthy animal life
d) being wired abnormally and being a covert gay (= wants to look more female)

posted by knn

The following post has been deemed OFFTOPIC. Do not answer it and do not quote from it or from parts of it. The reporter (knn) said: "A, this topic is about Homosex = malfunction. Not about gays who don't dare a coming out."

Tiefling:

a's describing people who live heterosexual lives out of fear, but given a choice would prefer homosexual lives. Is it a matter of what the person prefers, or how the person acts?

IMO, how the person acts.
& by that i mean: if you practice homosexual sex = you're gay.
Though if you just wish you'd be doing it, but you really don't practice gay sex = you're not gay.
B/c these ppl have the malfunction, but they're just too scared to act on it, therefore they live a hetero life, so if you live a hetero life (even if you hate it) you're not gay.

I think it's the same thing like the crime of murder, for example:
You s.times fantasize about cutting your stupid boss's head off with a samurai sword = you're not a murderer.
You actually cut your stupid boss's head off with a samurai sword = you're a murderer.

posted by a

Goto page
1, 2 Next

The time now is 24 May 2012, 18:48
php B.B.