Indeed this was my argument to Paul (although all this has been wiped out now) He has said that the phsycology of homosexuals was similar to that of paedophiles (correct me if i am saying this wrong) as they were both just sexual preferences. My argument was that homosexuality is the same as hetrosexuality as the aim is to find a loving, equal partnership (although we all experiment along the way) whereas paedophilia etc is abuse. You could argue rape is a sexual preference... but its abuse!
I was using an extreme example to say that all sexual attraction that went against the primary instinct to reproduce could be classed as deviant, When I posted originally I wasn't thinking about the intent of the person acting on their desires ... but I did say that acting on abusive desires without caring about the consequences is a form of psychopathy. It happens between animals and, at one time in history, marraige and sexual relationships between people as young as 12 were part of normal life, nowadays that is rightfully frowned upon as being abusive. The question I asked was intended merely as pondering on "What is natural?" whether it was the way people behave or whether it is what society accepts. Clearly some stuff that happens in nature is unacceptable in a modern society. The way that society has gradually evolved over the centuries is that it has become less tolerent on abusiveness and more accepting on those who don't hurt people with their sexual preferences. Hopefully this will continue.
I guess anything people want to do could be classed as natural, as it feels natural to that person? The way I look at it (I think you mentioned this kinda thinking in the porn thread) is that anything between 2 consenting adults is ok (there are issues behind certain reasons why certain things maybe done but I wont go into this) whereas behaviour / actions that cause harm to someone although possibly natural (depending on your term of reference) are abusive and therefore wrong.
Killing is very natural. Animals do it for food, for fun, or to control the population. We don't. A simple rule of thumb: sex between two (or more, if you do it right) lucid consenting people is ok, and no-one has any right to complain. But there's nothing that can be said in favour of such sexual practises as paedophilia and most necrophilia, where at least one party cannot be said to be consentual or able to make informed decisions.
Am off topic a bit.... but humans do kill animals for fun, food and *ahem* population control (population control apparently ...my ass ) see the hunt thread But I agree with the rest
I didn't mean kiling animals. I meant killing within our own species. Except for fun, as far as I know. And yeah, we do those things, but we generally don't approve of it, or argue that we should do it because it's "natural".
That doesn't change the fact that we do it. Condemnation of Nazi or Soviet atrocities, doesn't change the fact that mankind calculating slaughtered millions of fellow humans for its own ends. And such attrocities are still committed to this day....
Yeah, but it isn't normally considered acceptable to kill others in peacetime because you're hungry, want to fuck their wife, or just generally think it's funny. Whereas for a long time homophobia was perfectly acceptable.
Well whatever form of killing/harmful behaviour is acceptable for some people in society now, I hope it doesn't stay that way.
That was because in ancient times the death rate amongst humans was very high and so it was neccessary for them to reproduce early inorder to live long enough to raise their children. The average life expectancy even by the middle ages was only 45. With many people dying in their twenties. I don't see how you can see relationships between two 12 year olds though as abusive.
All depends on your definition of the word abuse, simply allowing this can also be called abuse as it condones the stealing of someone's childhood. Are you saying that you would condone it? As far as I know (but may be wrong) There were often huge age gaps between partners. Anyway this link explains some more about the age of consent around the world and how it differs
I really do not understand homophobia. As i see it, sex is a funny thing. Some people like it wit ha member of the same sex, some like it wit ha member of the opposite sex, and some people like it with whips, chains, etc, and to me, as long as it's between two, three or four (or more!!!!) consenting adults, then i can't understand why any reasonable individual would have a problem. The only thing i can see that would make anyone apprehensive to accept homosexuality would be religion, but can't the religious nuts just concede that some people do fuck each other in a way that they don't do themselves, and stop trying to get them to fuck some other way, or not at all? Why don't they just do their own fucking their own fucking way? So i can't say i understand homophobia. I really can't relate to the meind of a homophobe. When I meet homophobes, I ask them questions like "So you're homophobic, so do yo uget aroused by lesbian sex/kissing, or does that intimidate you?" and i present all thes eother ridiculous questiosn which trivialise the issue, until they get the point that the issue is a trivial one, and that homophobia is wrong, which usually doesn't happen. I've met a few people who have a problem with gay people, and they'r eall like "I can't stand gay people." I'm not 100% straight myself, although at the moment, I've vowed that I'll stick with females for the time being, after having some bad experiences with men, but I don't feel angry with homophobes. I just feel genuine disappointment that someone could actually think that way. I won't shout at them or get mad with them ,I'll just rationalise it, saying "personally, i think sex is a funny thing, and whatever turns you on.... well go for it!!!!! if it involved whips, whipped cream, a man or a woman, I'm not arsed, as long as it's between consenting adults." Usually, they have no choice but to agree, since I'm taking a rationalistic, and calm approach to it, rather than directly telling them that I think they're a homophobic ****. I assume this approach wouldn't work with religious people. bu tanyway, I hope that this approach works, and that I have planted a seed in someone's mind that causes them to be more accepting of othe rpeople's sexual preferences.
I've got a mate who seems mildly homophobic. My only observation is that he may be scared of his own sexuality. Not that I think he is gay, but I reckon deep down he has some deep rooted stuff that he hasn't addressed ... and he's scared that if it surfaces it will "destroy" him or something. Therefore rather than confront his fears he just alienates himself away from what he sees as the problem.
I think that's quite common. Maybe a healthy honesty and lack of fear is the best way to avoid homophobia? I remember when I was a young teenager, going through the faurly typical phase of worrying in case I was gay. Rather than go into denial though, I actively imagined myself with other guys in sexual situations, and explored the possibility that I might be stimulated by it. I drew a complete blank, and remain steadfastly heterosexual to this day - but I was prepared to confront the possibility. Maybe that's why it's never disgusted me,
By the way I think that homosexuality is more common in women as a magazine survey a few months back found that one in four women had snogged another woman at sometime in their lives. I think the figure they gave for men was less than one in twenty.
I have experimented, thinkin gabout being with other guys, and it aroused me a bit. I've tried a couple of guys out, but I can say that I'd probably be best sticking with women in the future. I can't say I've really discovered my sexuality anyway, but I'm open to it, and accepting of it, because I've explored my own sexuality. So I guess I'm with atomik on this one.
I think that proves that religon is man made. As the Bible clearly says that if a man lays with another man as he would a woman, then an abomination has been committed and both men must be put to death. So if you want to believe the Bible is the word of God you have got to accept the death penalty for practising queers. If you don't believe the Bible statement on homosexualty then you reject that it is the word and God and therefore must be man made. I wish Christians would admit the Bible is man made instead of pissing about by saying things like although it says that in the Bible it doesn't really mean that. Well if it had been written by God it would be perfect and unambiguous wouldn't it?
