I bet there is no difference between a metro sexual and homosexual, except what is learned. The problem comes when people associate social ideas with who they really are. If they are not straight,… they must be the opposite.
Lacking the physical cause and effect of supposed biochemical triggers of homosexuality, all theories of homosexuality are just theories. Yet it is proven that males do not have the brain scans of a female until they start taking estrogen/testosterone blockers.
The human soul is neither male nor female,… but somewhere in between. The genders were created to consolidate life’s needs into roles toward each other. It takes love between the sexes to look beyond these differences. Males that marry more then one wife will overcompensate in order to keep their masculinity present,… thus have less compromise with the women unless it’s necessary to get laid. Just the same homosexuals become bias toward estrogen or testosterone.
Opposites attract, and have a stronger effect. Similar energies just get along better.
The sexes came about so we could reproduce, plain and simple. Once we no longer -needed- to individually reproduce in order for the species to survive, the dynamic human condition found what it desired in a more emotional way, rather than strickly biological.
The attraction to a particular mentality (and thus the consequencial physical affection) has been around forever, but these attractions were ordinarily squashed in order to settle down and find a ‘proper’ mate.
My wife, who is a sociologist, would likely say that there is little or no difference between anybody other than what is learned. In this case, drawing a distinction between homosexuals and metro-sexuals I would agree. However, I would also say that the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is also learned, at least until we can come up with evidence- genetic of physiological, to the contrary.
When you speak of “who people really are” do you mean the person they are meant to be (ie, genetically or based on God’s will)? Or do you mean their authentic self they might discover through any number of processes?
As you said, there is as yet no discernable physical difference between homosexual, heterosexual, or metro-sexual males. To the best of my knowlege there is also no evidence of a gay gene. If there’s no physical difference, and no genetic difference that would only leave a soul based, God’s will based, or learned behaviour based difference.
I’m pretty sure that given the intolerance we see from religious groups they wouldn’t admit that being gay - and actually doing something about it, was a result of god’s will.
That leaves the soul, learned behaviours, and some sort of as yet unmeasured physical cause as the only reasons for a man to be a homosexual.
As to which of these it is, I won’t comment right now, but I know which one my money’s on.
Of course - look at the Liberal Democrat leadership candidate who denied for years that he was gay (because he’s bisexual) and got into a load of trouble about it when the truth came out. It was almost completely overlooked that he isn’t gay and therefore never actually lied. He may have ‘misled’ but if you worked in politics you’d try not to give the jackals anything on which to feed…
I dunno, metrosexuals are wannabe homosexuals, I suppose, but lack the necessary attraction to other males. As I’ve mentioned before, this sort of male is essentially no different from a 13 year old girl and should probably be treated as such.
People will keep looking for some sort of inherent, predetermined ‘justification’ for homosexuality and bisexuality because there’s so much political capital to be gained from it. I’d rather we just moved on in the discussion and left all that adolescent debating society crap to the adolescents. I suppose that some people, journalists in particular, just never grow up…
It’s all about creating the right amount of friction…
Bull,… I hope you didn’t pay to learn this “fact”.
Do you not see that homosexuals are not the unasex? If they were,… psychologically there would be no difference between male and female homosexuals.
Do you not see the advantages of haveing more then one sex geared toward different aspects of life? Or does this sound so much like intelligent design that you will deny it to the very end.
Since when does philosophy mean you have to lose all logic.
How we define ourselves depends on what we have to compare ourselves to. In this some people will say ,“I am not religious, therfore I must be the anti-religion.”
God’s will was defined in the bible.
Do you think God chenges his morals with the infinate knowlege from outside time and space?
Some people learn to like homosexuality from being molested as a kid. Some people may of learned it from a past life.
While even worse, some people may learn it from the gay institution. (witch is the worse because it’s the most trusted advisor)
So metrosexuals are males with imature afeminate behavior. This makes them less then a homosexual how???
The one thing you got to realize is that biochemistry can only dictate sexual behavior if their is a unique chemical sender/ reciever in homosexuals. IE male pharamones and a female pharamone reciever to make a man straight. This would mean being attracted to someone on TV is learned. Then metrosexuals have no room in this model. In fact every time a metrosexual had an intamiate marital relationship with the opposite sex, you’d be saying they were lieing to themselves. It’s probably true that estrogine and testosterone affect eachother durring intamacy. But,… I have noticed I limit my attraction to types of people more then if shes a female with big boobs or not. This cannot be learned beyond chemical attraction. In fact it shows spiritual attraction above physical. It’s people that must have a women with big boobs to even consider falling in love. These people that have an idea of what love should be before they fall in love. These are the people that are prone to sex influancing their ideas of love. These preconceptions can be learned from almost anything. Especially TV. Lets not use a limited perspective to brainwash people in the ideas of love.
I have found that what we masterbate to is what forms our sexual orientation and fetishes. If that is too hard for you to do, at the moment of climax, switch the origional topic material for the new. Do this several times, I mean like one-hundred. You will see the growth of a new fixation. This is not to say that the old fixation can be negated. Also, the stimulation need not be climactic, provided it is sexual and also powerful, for example fear or pain on pity. My ignorant feeling is that homophilia would be a more apt term, thus catagorizing homosexuality among the very broad and varied paraphilias that give form to sex-drive in general. Further, I feel that sex is one of many modes where by the power-games which are life are lived out; homophilia is but one of the miriad of modes through which we are compeled to always play the power-game.
In my ignorant opinion, eveyone is born without particular orientation, however with sex-drive. To some degree the simple facts of our bodies decide how we will use the equipment that we have. Neither homo nor hetero are much of a great mental leap so far as putting our tools to work. Culturation and imagination further form the outlets we give our sex-drive.
To put it another way: everyone has so many megawatts of power that must be dispelled from the nervous system per unit time. If I learn to box, or do logic, or play S and M games or go in for normal coitus, these are all different ways to use the power we have and must alocate everyday. Sexuality is but one of many ways power is used.
Or yet another way: everyone is dealt so many cards; we must play out all these cards each round. Initially we just play pairs. But through experience or imagination we learn to play new sorts of tricks, three of a kind, runs, wild-cards, etc. Homophilia is one of these tricks that we learn. It works very well for playing out the cards that we are delt.
This is why it is possible for persons to live whole lives of celibacy, because there are many ways to divert the flow of power. This is also why power-games are so easily tacked onto sex, because sex is a power game.
Returning to the origional point, it is very hard to un-learn a game. It is also very hard for “old dogs to learn new tricks.” Everyone is driven by power; few, if any, are naturally born to use any given set of thought or behavior patterns.
By saying so, I do not intend to make any sort of value judgements, only to point out that the paraphilias are forms for expressing the sex-drive, and that sex-drive is a form for expressing the fundamental human “will to power.” The development of the multifarious paraphilias is obviously fed by pre-existing conditioning, and they do tend to grow into complimentary taxonomical categories; but this does not rule out seemingly irregular paraphilic sprouts which have been none the less grown intentionally and in predictable ways.
In university the subject of teratology facinated me; many a happy hour was whiled away reading and looking at “Birth Defects: atlas and compendium.”
But-- The mind-boggling array of (uncommon) variations on human that nature can spew out do not really answer the question of whether or not the majority of homosexuals are “born gay” or if they/we grow up to be gay. Most likely there is not a definative answer to this complicated question at this time.
The function of the prevalent scientific belief that homosexuality is genetic provides the masses with a Popular Authoritarian rationalization for accepting homosexuals morally. Homosexuals are able to work, consume and serve in the millitary, therefore their condemnation can not serve any purpose for capitalist-democracy.
It is somewhat significant as a moral justification that homosexuality be considered an inherent characteristic of a person. “The scientific basis for homosexuality” uses the same idea-vehicle of the 60s and 70s that made it impossible to hate a person on the basis of the color of their skin.
Belief in the Big Bang is the same kind of of idea. It provides a scientific metaphysical-house for the Christian-atheist masses egos to reside in safely.
Sexual orientation is a profoundly metaphysical issue. It is no coincidence that religion has a say on the subject.
The major perversions: homosexuality, pedophilia, incest, beastiality, necrophilia… are obviously despised based on instinctual revultion relating to reproduction. Beyond the level of the animal, none of these sexual orientations can, for any rational reason, be condemned.
Be that as it may, sexuality is a mode of power, and ego is the alocator of power, therefore ego is heavily dependant on sexual orientation for it’s stability and identity. It would be equally dangerous for the ego of the homosexual to realize that his sexual orientation is a free choice as it would be for a man to realize his womanized sex-object is a person-- an animal-- a body!
Luther was all his life haunted by the fact of birth defects. Birth-defects rock our concept of what human is, so too unstable sexuality (, gender) and chaotic universe destroy ego.
The hippies did not even begin to understand the meaning, or dangerousness, of “free-love.”
Our individual personalities determine our view on the the cause of sexual-orientation, and not facts. Our stance on this topic is determined by our psychologies and not by any real rational weighing of the (incomplete) facts.
If you’d like to attack something or someone or even make a claim about something imprtant, drop the biochemistry and come out with what it is that you’re really want to say.
The meaning of the act is the effect upon the living system.
I’d like to rant, but that’s useless.
Maybe I… will not talk seriously about the direction of humanity.
…Life is really fun. Everything works out in the end. People have a nice time with their lives, and can have families. People are safe in their homes. Porno is cool, and a healthy…
lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies lies = “civilized and politically correct ‘truth’.”
dasiodeurw… jaops…
Muhahahah!
This subject makes me neurvious.
Desire and craving is a form of stress.
Stress is what brings action.
There are forces within us that control us.
Natural robots.
The system.
I don’t like the thought of being controlled by, or needing someone/something.
Lets not make up a philosphy because it gives you the freedom to do what you want.
Opposites attract, and have a stronger effect. Similar energies just get along better.
Those are philosophies baced upon actual practice as to finding out the nature of humanity. You sugjest that past theologies are baced on going against our nature. But, if all we do is react to our DNA and our biochemical set up,… then philosophies would dirrectly reflect a personal perception of reality based on cause and effect they see.
If the “tom boy” is the opposite of a metrosexual. Then we merely see that not all males are naturally made for all females. Yet you say that males that act feminum are made for other males that have feminum tendencies. To me this just looks like friends that screw,… and relationships are baced on whats easier for them. Yet, have you ever tried living with your best friend? Don’t yo find it’s hard to get along? So any hardship a homosexual has in a relationship is because they didn’t find someone enough like them,… or who just excepts their faults. I say this because they aren’t forced to see a different view point in life. The difference between men and women offers different perspective to the same view point. Yet homosexuals are not the unasex because male homosexuals don’t act just like female homosexuals.
If these homosexuals would look beyond the physical aspects they love,… and at the soul first. Then they would find a stronger love in the opposite sex. But of course you’d have to be able to teach straights to do the same.
I’m so done with this thread, at first I thought it was going to be worthwhile but I was so wrong. Did you want us to say that heterosexuals have a stronger love than gay people? Sorry, not going to do it, you haven’t even come close to presenting a compelling argument that heterosexual love is stronger than homosexual.
“These homosexuals” (whoever THEY are) seem to be perfectly happy with, and completely fulfilled by, their relationships. Its great that we’re finally reognising the importance of civil marriage rights for same sex couples, I can’t wait until every western jurisdiction recognises them.
Good old us and them… such a valuable way to look at things
So,… the fact your going to say is that homosexuals have stronger relationships because they are wired the same. While straights have to bridge the gap between them and struggle to achieve the same thing. Yet homosexuals are not the unasex.
There are several things you have to look at when definning love. If everything is energy, then the body can create certain energies that are notted in love. Yet the soul has to be taken into consideration also (for a ghost charges the air it touches allowing us to see it’s side effect, and thus also charges the body and each other).
1.If any soul can go into any body, then you’ll see we can have spiritual charges from any sex to any sex. (The human soul is neither male nor female,… but somewhere in between. The genders were created to consolidate life’s needs into roles toward each other. It takes love between the sexes to look beyond these differences.)
2.If the body has a pharamone recepter/ sender that some how wakes you up psychologically,… then you’ll see that this reciever can be naturally mutated. That if you have a male sender and reciever, you’d psychologically learn from this. Yet, this has never been proven with brain scans,… it should be soo easy.
3.If you have experiance as the opposite sex in your past life,… remembering how to sub-conciously act and more naturally do these things. Where is the cause and effect for transgender behavior in the second model? It’s abscure and requires you to ignore estrogin and testosterone as the main effect in psychological maturity.
No, actually, what I’m claiming has nothing at all to do with homosexuals. What I’m claiming is that you (who bears the burden of evidence) haven’t presented even the begining of a compelling argument.
That would likely be true IF everything is energy, and IF the soul exists.
IF any soul (which may or may not exist) can go into any body then I’ll see spiritual charges. Demonstrate that any soul can go into any body and how I can measure spiritual charges.
IF the body uses pheremones exclusively for this sort of thing.
As far as brainscans… the lack of evidence of existence, is not evidence of the lack of existence. “Brain scans” are imprecise anyway, and they may not be able to show us small neural differences.
IF reincarnation occurs and IF you can recall the experiences of your past life.
Just to reiterate:
I’m not making any claim about any type of love, I’m challenging you to develop and argument which doesn’t rely on appeals to claims and assumptions that aren’t even sure on their own.
When you contradict yourself in finding what you choose to believe in, it just goes to show your closed minded. By the way this is a philosophy board. So proof is in the eye of the beholder.
IE… Ghost hunters have found the side effects of ghosts,… but not the ghost. Let me tell you exactly what they found,… Cold spots, self contained orbs of lights, and electromagnetic disturbances. Now, these three things show that there is something independent of the physical energy we know of, that is creating these side effects. You claim this means nothing. I asume it is a ghost and evidence there of. So all the things I used on this stance, that you void yourself of, just go to show you will never find the whole truth but just half truths. And half truths are lies.
What I’m saying is that there is no pharamone reciever that isn’t dictated by the same gene that creates your sexual oragans and your sexual hormones. I’m also saying that since the soul is a collection of experiances,… that the bias experiances like homosexual relations would not be apart of God’s intelligent design.
In fact, any evidence of people responding to pharamones would be because of the same part of the brain responsiable for things like music responce of endorphine release. And what kind of misic you choose to respond to is 100% personal taste. Just like people can learn to be bi-sexual, and have intamiate loving relations with both sexes (witch there is no room for in your idea that supports homosexuality as biochemical responces).
Thank you so much for pointing out to me that this is a philosophy forum… I was deceived by the URL… here I was thinking it was a forum about something else.
“ILovePhilosophy.com… what could that be about?” I wondered to myself as I joined.
from my first post, which I’ll now quote for you:
(“genetic of physiological” should read “genetic or physiological”’ in the quote)
As you can see, I agree that the distinction between homosexuals,metro-sexuals, and heterosexuals is learned.
I feel as if you aren’t reading my posts… I never said that the effects that Ghost hunters found weren’t caused by ghosts, I just asked you to demonstrate the fact that they were. You have mistaken the fact that I’m questioning you as disagreement.
I’m not going to digress far enough to demonstrate to you why proof isn’t in the eye of the beholder. (I’ll give you a clue though… it has something to do with what you said right before that)
I find it really interesting that you claim I’m closed minded because I don’t agree with you - even though I do, but for different reasons. You keep attributing these strange claims to me.
Shall I recap?
and
Neither of which I actually claimed. Interesting.
By the way, thanks for the ad hominem… I like it when people add that personal touch.
