An evolving thought: nondenominational affectional/sexual orientation

[blatantlyobvious]

So you're one of the many dudes out here infecting the pu$sy population?

I'm joking, but I'm currently at a coffee shop working on a novel. There are usually chicks serving; Today there is one of the gayest n1ggas in the world playing barista. I'm not discriminating against him, but I think it would be bad news if most of the other guys in the world were also, very feminine acting and attracted to guys like him. Plus I doubt he would be interested in any of the women around here. And if they are interested in him, then we are in trouble, because biology has structured the way men and women act and what we are attracted to about each other.
So, while I chatted w dude for a min, and think he's cool or whatever, I don't think that the birth defect (sorry), should be affecting more than the 5% of the population - or whatever it's current rate.

I think you should reevaluate homosexuality as an orientation separate from a behavior. Also, you should keep in mind that not all gay men behave flamboyantly or femininely, though some just naturally are due to the biological predisposition of hormones. Another thing to keep in mind is that research suggests that homosexual males have similar brain chemistry to that of a heterosexual female, and vice versa for homosexual females (which have the brain chemistry similar to that of heterosexual males). Lastly, think about all the gay men and men that are not gay but have sex with men and do not report it. Think of all the men and women that "experiment" with the same sex. The men and women who have sex with the same sex strictly for sexual satisfaction. And so forth. It's a lot greater than 5%, since most people have at least one gay experience in their lifetime; whether it be thoughts, fantasies, behaviors, etc., for whatever reason.

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Blackking]

I think you should reevaluate homosexuality as an orientation separate from a behavior. Also, you should keep in mind that not all gay men behave flamboyantly or femininely, though some just naturally are due to the biological predisposition of hormones. Another thing to keep in mind is that research suggests that homosexual males have similar brain chemistry to that of a heterosexual female, and vice versa for homosexual females (which have the brain chemistry similar to that of heterosexual males). Lastly, think about all the gay men and men that are not gay but have sex with men and do not report it. Think of all the men and women that "experiment" with the same sex. The men and women who have sex with the same sex strictly for sexual satisfaction. And so forth. It's a lot greater than 5%, since most people have at least one gay experience in their lifetime; whether it be thoughts, fantasies, behaviors, etc., for whatever reason.

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

you're pretty reasonable. But still...


so demonic.

A lot greater isn't more than 10%. And yea If every guy wasn't flaming, that would greatly help the gay causes. People don't like that, or transgenderism. IF gay people were gay, not butch dykes, no flaming males.. sh1t would be ok.

 

[blatantlyobvious]

I've met a few ppl, all very young, who identify as pan-sexuals or whatever they referred to themselves as


I always just assumed they hipsters trying do hipster-shyt,


but I dunno



BTW why do you type like a typewriter, friend? :wutdahell::bronbald:

I write a lot of collegiate essays, so I guess I've simply conditioned myself to type this way. Besides, I'm a psychology and pre med student aspiring to practice psychiatry in the future--I'll be writing professionally for the rest of my life.

Also, why not type the right way? Regardless of us being online and this being an informal discussion, why misrepresent yourself? Why type "da" for "the" when you are well-aware of the proper spelling? The same goes for grammar and mechanics--if you know it, why not show it? I can understand and sympathize with commonly used acronyms, but it's hard for me to accept and acknowledge someone intentionally, or blatantly (as the term is more "fitting" lol), putting out less than their best.

Perfection maybe insurmountable, but the concept from which it is derived certainly applies when it comes to one pushing to be the best that they can be... In any instance. Dig?

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

 

[blatantlyobvious]

you're pretty reasonable. But still...


so demonic.

A lot greater isn't more than 10%. And yea If every guy wasn't flaming, that would greatly help the gay causes. People don't like that, or transgenderism. IF gay people were gay, not butch dykes, no flaming males.. sh1t would be ok.

Lol. Demonic? Religious bias. That implies that femininity is deviant, when in actuality, as I've started before, it's natural. Keep in mind that a lot of what you learn from the Bible and religion cannot be tested or proven to be existential, so the constant need to make reference to it when facing empirical evidence, facts, or truths proves to be wasteful. That's like taking some brass knuckles to a nuclear war and expecting them to hold some sort of weight on the battlefield. Total obliteration...

Another thing: contrary to my feminine online persona, offline, you would probably not even think I was homosexual, much less a feminine, flaming homosexual. No two colors of our rainbow are exactly the same, and the same goes for people--everyone is unique as they are individuals; regardless of their similarities.

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

 

[daze23]

I write a lot of collegiate essays, so I guess I've simply conditioned myself to type this way. Besides, I'm a psychology and pre med student aspiring to practice psychiatry in the future--I'll be writing professionally for the rest of my life.

Also, why not type the right way? Regardless of us being online and this being an informal discussion, why misrepresent yourself? Why type "da" for "the" when you are well-aware of the proper spelling? The same goes for grammar and mechanics--if you know it, why not show it? I can understand and sympathize with commonly used acronyms, but it's hard for me to accept and acknowledge someone intentionally, or blatantly (as the term is more "fitting" lol), putting out less than their best.

Perfection maybe insurmountable, but the concept from which it is derived certainly applies when it comes to one pushing to be the best that they can be... In any instance. Dig?

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

I think he was talking about the font you use. I know it sounds silly, but using different fonts just makes it hard to read. it's like your eyes have to adjust first or some shyt

 

[Majestyx]

I think he was talking about the font you use. I know it sounds silly, but using different fonts just makes it hard to read. it's like your eyes have to adjust first or some shyt

and courier is a shyt font.

 

[WhiteDawg3000]

I think he was talking about the font you use. I know it sounds silly, but using different fonts just makes it hard to read. it's like your eyes have to adjust first or some shyt

BINGO!

 

[blatantlyobvious]

Religion is not what spawned the discrimination to begin with. Non-hetro hasn't been exhibited long before religion. Learning more doesn't increase acceptance. Obviously religion isn't oppressing homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior actually isn't that taboo anymore, it's rare because it's naturally unnatural to most humans and Animals alike.


For the most part, we have had some type of supernatural belief system since we've "came into existence". There is no time that we can point to and be like... see, there were gay relationships and no religion existed. Different forms of worship and religion are one of the main reasons we even know anything about ancient human beings, in the first place. When we were spreading throughout the world from Africa we weren't showing signs of being gay. Homosexuality is mainly forced onto Ancient people by modern ideas. Some people may quote sh1t like Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum, to fit ideology and viewpoints. Archeologist have proved that to be a sibling relationship rather than gay relationship.
There may have been lesbians in Ancient Africa??
Regardless, most tribes And Nations in Africa aren't tolerant of homosexuality in the past or present. You can use the logic, well there are gay people now- people first developed in Africa- so there must have been gay men and women on Africa for all of history- but there is no evidence for this.
I believe there may have been some rare cases of warrior tribes, where men would take boys as partners when they went to war or whatever. But even if homosexuality has existed before the development of Western Culture, it was always rare and fringe.
It was always counterproductive and not normal, so why all of a sudden should human beings consider something normal that is even rare in nature normal?

Any time you deem something unknowable you must realize that it's a two-way street. Saying that the pre-religious existence of non-heterosexuality can't be proven mere means that it either did or it didn't. Like the existence of God as an existential entity of perfection cannot be falsified, your claims of abnormality are not supported.

Consider the following: if the bible claims that non-heterosexuality is detestable, what is to be said about the animals that are unable to read? Unable to pass moral judgment? Are they hell-bound, contrary to the Bible's word suggesting that they're going to heaven?

The bible has already been written, so any adjustments made prove that there's a hidden agenda being pushed, opposing the normality of non-heterosexuality. The credibility of the Bible's teachings will be forever tarnished.

You're pushing so hard against accepting the naturalness of it all that you're forgetting that your attractions are natural to you. We have little to no control over who we're attracted to, according to the APA (2008); and for you to negate the empirical research, findings, and work of world scientists that have consented to the normality of non-heterosexuality with no factual support of your own only proves that you are in fact biased and in denial (unless you can prove otherwise). You can't provide evidence supporting religious claims, nor can you support your own; so, at this point, I can only assume you're blatantly ignoring the facts as a way to prevent yourself from suffering at the hands of good old cognitive dissonance. That disharmony can have some rather nasty affects on your psychological wellbeing.

As for it being "counterproductive", again, research suggests that sexuality is fluid, and that the reason we have no universal understanding of the "phenomena" is because of this fluidity. Due to sexuality being continuous in nature and hard to understand for human beings that lack the capacity for criticality (no shade), it is hard to accurately judge just how many non-heterosexuals--whether exclusively or predominantly homo, or equally homo and hetero; bi--there are. The same applies for you, my heterosexual counterparts. The lack of understanding has people self-identifying in ways contrary to their exhibited behaviors.

It really is a lot that I want to discuss with you, bro, but I'm on my phone, and I want to respond to as many posts as I can. We have to discuss this broad, controversial topic discretely (not to be confused with discreetly) to minimize the essay-like responses and ensure that we cover everything. Deal?

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

 

[blatantlyobvious]

BINGO!

and courier is a shyt font.

I think he was talking about the font you use. I know it sounds silly, but using different fonts just makes it hard to read. it's like your eyes have to adjust first or some shyt

Oh, dag. I guess being on my phone it doesn't show as anything other than the standard font (which is, I want to say, Robotic[?]). Sorry, guys. Any suggestions on what I should/could do? Would Times New Roman be staining, too? If not, I'll probably have to get on my computer and change it to either that or Georgia, manually.

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Majestyx]

Oh, dag. I guess being on my phone it doesn't show as anything other than the standard font (which is, I want to say, Robotic[?]). Sorry, guys. Any suggestions on what I should/could do? Would Times New Roman be staining, too? If not, I'll probably have to get on my computer and change it to either that or Georgia, manually.

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

yes, times would be easier on the eyes.

 

[blatantlyobvious]

BINGO!

All right, I hope this is better(?).

Being on the computer using this shyt is weird. The smilies... Lol.

 

[blatantlyobvious]

yes, times would be easier on the eyes.

Man, Times looks smaller than Georgia (which is what I am using now), so I hope this suffices. Lol.

 

[Majestyx]

Man, Times looks smaller than Georgia (which is what I am using now), so I hope this suffices. Lol.

well, gerogia or times is fine... they are relatively the same font only a font whore/designer, would give a shyte, but its better to read than fuly ass courier. carry on with your objective sir

 

[blatantlyobvious]

No homosexuality is not "normal" or "natural" behavior for human beings. God/mother nature/randomness made us different for a reason. Males and females are perfect foils of each other mentally physically and emotionally. A lot of what makes us tick comes from the differences that we posses, there will never be a time when the norm is to not have these differences.

Uh, you do know that "these differences" are but social constructions, right? Lol. The "image" or idea, rather, suggesting that men are to behave a certain way contrary to how females behave is the product of what society constructed. It is a barrier. That is why when intersexuals or transsexuals are born and grow to behave contrary to their assigned gender, they're viewed as deviants.

When you think critically about it, all humans are essentially female. Chromosomal distribution differentiates male from female as we develop. Also, during our early stages of development, we all go through a period of hermaphroditism, meaning we are both male and female. All humans, both male and female, are born with both male and female hormones, too. An excess of female hormones would produce a more feminine male, whereas on the contrary, an excess of male hormones would produce a more masculine woman.

Also, based on the observation of developmental hermaphroditism, Sigmund Freud and his associate(s) theorized that all humans may be born with a predisposition to bisexuality; and through psychological development mature into either monosexuality (while subconsciously holding on to their latent bi/homosexuality) or leading a bisexual life. Regardless of if this theory holds any truth or not, though, recent research (which is based on another famous figure in modern psychology, Alfred Kinsey) suggests that regardless of how one is affectionally/sexually oriented, their sexuality (the way that they express their sexual desires, behaviors, etc.) is in fact fluid, or continuous; ranging from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual, encompassing everything in-between (including bisexuality, and the less familiar hetero and homoflexibility [which is "mostly straight" or "mostly gay"]).

So, contrary to your beliefs and biases and whether or not you choose to remain in denial of what is really going on in life, these truths are empirically supported, whereas your opinions are not. A little research won't hurt you, buddy. Stop relying on what you've been traditionally taught through society and family and do some higher learning/self-educating of your own. This shouldn't seem like such a far-off abstraction since you are an adult, bro.

*Remember, this is a thread posted to invoke criticality; not blatant ignorance. If I am coming off as insolent, please pardon me, but that is not negating the fact that you are simply "talking out the side of your neck". Though that seems like it requires a lot of skill, and it may, the fact of the matter remains true: it lacks substance.

 

[blatantlyobvious]

well, gerogia or times is fine... they are relatively the same font only a font whore/designer, would give a shyte, but its better to read than fuly ass courier. carry on with your objective sir

Lol. How grateful for your permission to do me I am, sir. [sarcasm]"nikka, please..."[/sarcasm]

JK!

But thanks for the tip, bro.

On the topic of my "objective", though, what are your thoughts on it?