And what is interesting is that the aversion can dramatically be set aside for many people, as we very recently saw in Ireland.
Yes thankfully, as well as the US
And what is interesting is that the aversion can dramatically be set aside for many people, as we very recently saw in Ireland.
Yes, they do. But they have restrictions to free assembly with women, their objects of desire. Whereas a pandaka would have free assembly with men, their objects of desire. And that's not good for either party. A normal homosexual, though, would not pose a significant problem. There have probably been many gay men in robes since the time of the Buddha, with many of them becoming great teachers. It's not about orientation per se. It's about an extravagant sexual behaviour which poses a problem to the harmony in the sangha.Spiny Norman wrote:Straight men do those things too of course.Modus.Ponens wrote:A homosexual who dresses in drag might be an example. Or a gay man that never had a stable relationship and "parties" every night at a gay club.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Evolutionary psychology is a scientific-evidence-based field of psychology, unlike psychoanalysis. Even though there's a lot of interesting and true things in psychoanalysis, it does not have the same solid evidence base as evolutionary psychology. At least, this is what I've learned as a lay man on psychology.Mr Man wrote:We might find a different "real reason" in Freudian psychology.Modus.Ponens wrote:The real reason for the existence of homophobia is understood if you read a bit about evolutionary psychology.
Yes, and the UK too. But sadly there are still many countries where gays are oppressed and victimised, so there is still a long way to go.clw_uk wrote:Yes thankfully, as well as the USAnd what is interesting is that the aversion can dramatically be set aside for many people, as we very recently saw in Ireland.
My point is that Evolutionary psychology may offer a reason but it cannot be called "The real reason".Modus.Ponens wrote:I don't understand what you're trying to say. Evolutionary psychology is a scientific-evidence-based field of psychology, unlike psychoanalysis. Even though there's a lot of interesting and true things in psychoanalysis, it does not have the same solid evidence base as evolutionary psychology. At least, this is what I've learned as a lay man on psychology.Mr Man wrote:We might find a different "real reason" in Freudian psychology.Modus.Ponens wrote:The real reason for the existence of homophobia is understood if you read a bit about evolutionary psychology.
And again, just because something is favored by evolution it doesn't mean that it is moraly right. Or else we would be killing a lot more people, for example.
Social norms and civil law are two different things. For example, in Saudia Arabia there is no civil law that ban women from driving, but its socially unacceptable.chownah wrote:Haven't read most of this thread but one factor which some mentioned as a detractor to same sex sex is that it goes against social norms. I think these people should take a look at the fact that same sex marriage is now legal everywhere in the USA so it seems that same sex sex has been officially sanctioned. I guess then that social norms can not be used as a detractor for same sex sex in the USA.
chownah
This is all nice and interesting to some extent, but bonobos aren't humans and that they are closely related to humans proves nothing. Pigs are also closely related to humans, that doesn't mean that the behaviour of pigs is comparable to humans.clw_uk wrote:The problem is that normal is relative. If we look at the bonobo species, it isn't normal to not engage in homosexual activity.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... mal_2.html;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.
I'm not, you are right but I think I know what it feels like to be called a "deviant" or "not normal". Maybe I just lack empathy. The thing is I don't understand why it's so important for you for example to be called "normal".clw_uk wrote:I assume your not a homosexual, so you probably don't understand what it feels like to be called a "deviant" or 'not normal".
I understand that and that's why I usually refrain from saying anything, because I don't want to create negative emotional responses.clw_uk wrote:So you see, although I'm sure you don't mean to cause offence, calling a gay man or woman a "deviant" or "not normal" won't be taken very well and it will usually illicit an emotional response; because homosexuals have had to put up with being stigmatised as outcasts for centuries and the usual justification for this persecution is that we are abnormal.
Your missing my point, which was that what is "normal" is relative. In terms of nature as a whole, homosexuality is quite normal.This is all nice and interesting to some extent, but bonobos aren't humans and that they are closely related to humans proves nothing. Pigs are also closely related to humans, that doesn't mean that the behaviour of pigs is comparable to humans.
Because more often that not using the phrase "not normal" in relation to homosexuality is often the springboard for launching into anti-gay rhetoric. Its too closely bound up with negative connotations.I'm not, you are right but I think I know what it feels like to be called a "deviant" or "not normal". Maybe I just lack empathy. The thing is I don't understand why it's so important for you for example to be called "normal".
I'll give you a comparison.
I'm the only buddhist in my family and circle of friends. Some accept that, others tell me they think I'm not normal. However I don't have a problem with those who call me weird or a hippie because I meditate. I just don't expect them to consider any of my behaviour to be "normal".
Personally I'm not offended, but I'm trying to make you aware of how your speech can be interpreted by other people. Most homosexual's wont react positively to being labelled "not normal" due to the way the term has been used in the past.I understand that and that's why I usually refrain from saying anything, because I don't want to create negative emotional responses.
Points takenclw_uk wrote:acinteyyo -
Your missing my point, which was that what is "normal" is relative. In terms of nature as a whole, homosexuality is quite normal.This is all nice and interesting to some extent, but bonobos aren't humans and that they are closely related to humans proves nothing. Pigs are also closely related to humans, that doesn't mean that the behaviour of pigs is comparable to humans.
Because more often that not using the phrase "not normal" in relation to homosexuality is often the springboard for launching into anti-gay rhetoric. Its too closely bound up with negative connotations.I'm not, you are right but I think I know what it feels like to be called a "deviant" or "not normal". Maybe I just lack empathy. The thing is I don't understand why it's so important for you for example to be called "normal".
I'll give you a comparison.
I'm the only buddhist in my family and circle of friends. Some accept that, others tell me they think I'm not normal. However I don't have a problem with those who call me weird or a hippie because I meditate. I just don't expect them to consider any of my behaviour to be "normal".
There is a world of difference between being the only Buddhist in your family compared to being the only homosexual in a family/society. BTW it is normal for humans to engage in spiritual practices
Personally I'm not offended, but I'm trying to make you aware of how your speech can be interpreted by other people. Most homosexual's wont react positively to being labelled "not normal" due to the way the term has been used in the past.I understand that and that's why I usually refrain from saying anything, because I don't want to create negative emotional responses.
It would be considered more polite to use the term minority instead of "not normal".
So I guess it depends on what social group you are running around with....if it is all same sex people then it is the social norm.....also, laws are part of the social norm usually.Bundokji wrote:Social norms and civil law are two different things. For example, in Saudia Arabia there is no civil law that ban women from driving, but its socially unacceptable.chownah wrote:Haven't read most of this thread but one factor which some mentioned as a detractor to same sex sex is that it goes against social norms. I think these people should take a look at the fact that same sex marriage is now legal everywhere in the USA so it seems that same sex sex has been officially sanctioned. I guess then that social norms can not be used as a detractor for same sex sex in the USA.
chownah
However, law makers can accelerate social change. Once again, back in the sixties, the religious community in Saudia Arabia was against female education, and when the king at that time (king Faisal) wanted to establish a school for Females, most of the conservatives protested, but he insisted that its not compulsory and if they don't want to educate their daughters no one would force them to do so. Nowadays female education is the norm in Saudia Arabia.
Peace