That's not fair and balanced; what about Islam or the Maya gods?

6.5 billion people on this earth. Our genes want the species to survive. When the bible was written, this only meant reproduce. Today we need to stabilize the population.

Hey, you took me off ignore!

There is nothing a human can do that is "unnatural," that just tends to be a code word for fear or hatred. The post I was responding to was rank homophobia couched in scientific jargon with nothing to support it but prejudice and it described none of the homosexuals I've known.

I suppose I could have explained all of that the first time, but it seemed pretty obvious to me so a simple **** you seemed more appropriate.

If you disagree with terms, you can ask to define it, Nielsio style.


You've now yourself made both an ad hominem as well as empty assertions without backing it up ('fear, hatred, rank homophobia'). So that isn't helping.


ps: with the new software all the ignores were reset so everyone got a new chance.

That's not what I said. Please re-read.

I said people who are homosexuals have a higher chance of being more psychologically damaged than those who aren't.

It's not because homosexuality is "wrong", but rather because heterosexual behaviour is encoded in our genes. So to reject that, is often the result or expression of serious psychological trauma.

Do note that I said bisexuals tend to be more happy than both heterosexuals and homosexuals. This is because there's nothing in our genes against homosexual behaviour, in fact there's a lot in favor of it.

We are very sexual creatures, and within our social framework we experience sexual desires for many of those around us. To supress some of those is a mental restriction with no reasonable basis, and that produces suffering.

However in the society we live in, it's very easy to supress homosexual desires, since mostly everyone will support this. But in order to get us to suppress heterosexual desires, even when we know most people will think much less of us because of that, something really traumatic often has to occur. I'm not saying it's always the case though.

Where are you getting this from, and you don't find this pejorative?

Oh wait, where are you getting this? And your supposition is still pejorative.

Did you do a survey?

So you are saying that it's a choice then and not something in the genes?

Yes, you are saying it's a choice. And the tone in your previous post and this post indicate it's a poor choice and the people who make it are less well than people who don't make it. Nothing you've said makes me change my original response to your post.

soon2bepro I am intrigued by your claims and look forward to evidence supporting it!

You can start by reading Freud's work.

ROFL. Seriously, Freud???

Yes, seriously.

I don't like to discuss with deluded, close minded people. Go listen to your preacher, there's nothing in books for you.

You realize that Freud has been rejected by pretty much all psychologists, even the psychoanalysts (who themselves are rejected by 90% of the psychologists and almost all of the research psychologists)?

You also realize that Freud's ideas have been contricted by all the sexual research done in the last 100 years?

I do. Do you realize that 85% of the US population believes there's an invisible alpha male in the sky that watches them as they masturbate? And that worldwide it's worse?

Simply stating that a lot of people reject Freud is meaningless.

I have found that the best psychologist/psychoanalists out there support Freud's work, and often get most of their ideas from it. Also my own research and experience suggests to me that Freud was definitely on to something. Whenever something new and great is discovered in psychology, and I mean the stuff that really helps people get more in touch with their inner self and becoming more happy, it's got roots in Freud's work, or at least it can be seen that Freud got it first.

And no reasonable person would dare deny Freud's tremendous influence in psychology, even in modern day behaviour therapy. (which anyone can see doesn't really work)

The psychological community reject Freud. The experts on the subject. Not just average yokels. Furthermore, we're talking about the opposite situation - theists claim that God exists, therefore the onus is on them. You claim that Freud's homophobia is validated (despite the fact that all the scientific evidence contradicts it and refutes his predictions), and therefore the onus is on you. You are the one making claims without evidence, and you are playing the theist according to that analogy.

Very few people would say that the best psychologists are psychoanalysts. Where are you getting your information, and who do you consider the "best," and by what standard?

If they get their ideas from someone else's work, particularly someone who worked before the field of psychology even got started, then they certainly aren't the best.

What research? Links and citations, please.

Everything in psychology has roots in Freud's work - just as everything in physics has roots in Newton's work. Doesn't change the fact that Freud (and Newton) were wrong, and that science moves at a very fast pace and left its forebears behind long ago.

What about all the people who's lives have been tremendously changed for the better by psychoanalysis? You just don't see that kind of change from modern psychology. Modern psychology is like giving people painkillers for cancer. Is there anyone who was truly cured by modern psychology?

From a lot of sources, medical cases, friends and people I know, my own analysis of the basis by which most psychologists work, etc. I meant to add in my previous post that I don't intend to "prove" what I'm saying because this is a very hard thing to do in this area, I'm just going to make a case.

By best I don't mean the very best, I mean the ones that are "good" in my view. And my standard is the methods that can cure people instead of hurting them even more.

If most of the biologists from Darwin 'till today rejected evolution, would it be wrong to take most of your ideas on the subject from Darwin? Anyway I didn't mean to say they didn't do their own research.

Personal research, I meant to add that too, I was saying you shouldn't take my word for it, I was just expressing my POV. Somehow a part of my previous message was deleted. Anyway, no citations, sorry.

I went off on a huge rant about evidence-supported psychology and outcome-oriented research and clinical trials and so on, but it's really not relevant to this point. I'd love to know the opinions of tame (and Taraz if he's still around) on the subject, but on Freud:

Until today? Assuming that those biologists used research to support their claims, and Darwinists refused to use research? Hell yes it would be correct to disbelieve evolution. And even though Darwin would be right (you would have no way of knowing this of course, and the smartest people in the world would have reached the wrong conclusion), he would still have a pathetically simplistic view of evolution and many of his specific claims would be absolutely wrong (just as they are today).

If, on the other hand, basically all biologists agreed with Darwin until contradictory evidence arose, at which point most of them stopped agreeing with him, then there would be even more of a reason to reject his ideas.

If Freud had truly solved the mystery of the human psyche, then 1) we wouldn't be finding new and surprising things every day (which we are), and 2) all of his testable claims would not have failed to meet the test of scientific inquiry (which they did). What we have left is the core of Freud's unfalsifiable beliefs about human psychology, and no they don't deserve any more credit than the unfalsifiable beliefs of theists.

This is especially true where homosexuality is concerned - we have biological data, including twin studies and longitudinal studies, indicating that there is a genetic component or predisposition to homosexuality (or that it's even primarily genetic). But because some conservative guy living over 100 years ago thought homosexuals were "defective," you think the hard science is wrong.

I'm not buying your personal research on this one.

So you are implying homosexuality is a unnatural condition/disease?

This is false, our genes "want" themselves to "survive". If this means survival of the species must be achieved to meet this end, so be it.

Assuming that "homosexuality" has a strong genetic component, it is not completely unreasonable that alleles making someone more prone to homosexuality could be selected for and hence maintained in the population.

For example, assuming that genetic succeptibility toward homosexuality is polymorphic, it is very likely that many of the "homosexual" alleles by themselves could have given a selective advantage, and it is only a select combination of polymorphic alleles in a select environment that leads to homosexuality.

This is sort of like the sickle cell allele in Africa, where the gene has survived and reached a certain frequency because historically it gave a selective advantage for heterozygot individuals, although it was deleterious for homozygotes.

In any case, although in our modern era and society there are lifelong exclusive homosexuals, historically I think most homosexuals lead normal heterosexual relationships including plenty of procreation, and were homosexuals in secret on the side. In this case homosexuality would not have been selected against, and maybe such individuals had personality traits that gave them a selective advantage.

lol no. I was pointing out how dumb the loaded part of his question was.

Freud said that bisexuals are happier than homosexuals and heterosexuals?

I'll go one better; our genes don't want anything.

The genes we currently have often seem to "want" to propagate, but this doesn't apply to future genes.

What happens is that some genes propagate, while other genes fail to propagate. This happens at every step, and as a result, since the genes that have failed to propagate are no longer there, we only see genes that have propagated. They have propagated so well that it seems like they "want" to propagate.

But really, we are only looking at the tiny slice of the very most successful genes - if we looked at all the genes that ever existed, the majority do not "want" much of anything.

To be more relevant, if the human species survives then it will appear that our genes "wanted" us to survive. If the human species dies out, then nobody will be around to note how our genes didn't want us to survive.

Exclusive homosexuality has been accepted in many cultures as far back as we know of. The Greeks were, uh, maybe too accepting.

Freud loved bisexuals. We can only speculate why.

Edit: Keep in mind this is the guy who brought us penis envy, which I suppose s2b also believes in. We could use you over in the Lounge, man!

Of course they're happier. They have double the chance of getting a date on Saturday night.

On a more serious note, nothing Freud said should be believed.

"my own research and experience suggests to me that Freud was definitely on to something."

What was he onto? My research suggests he was wrong about just about everything, and lied about just about everything.

''we all start having our mothers as our ideal sexual partner.''

Evidence?