Your continued idolization of Freud’s viewpoint is troubling. Not only has his theory been proven to be fraudulent...he is said to have been abused as a child.
We seem to be saying something similar, though. Culture (taboos, etc.) form the thinking and the actions of people and the ideas of right and wrong in the society. Take away the taboos and you take away incentive to do the good thing. Human nature is selfish, unlike Rousseau would claim, so, there is a need to put moral restraint on actions....or you would have Darwin’s world—survival of the fittest. Lord of the Flies defines the world with no rules pretty well. Even Freud acknowledged the need for restraint of the powerful sex drive.
You are telling me that nature goes against nature and creates homosexuals “naturally”. I say that is nonsense. There is no logic to it. It is humanly constructed by child abuse...either emotional or/and physical. There are no “normal” children born with a desire to copulate with dogs, babies, men, cadavers, etc. They are abnormal desires that are elicited by the environment.
Normal development does orient one to the opposite sex, unless interfered with by abuse, etc. There are no animals in nature that are homosexual—only in environments which were interfered or/and contaminated by man. One result of severe deprivation from maternal care is homosexuality which also exhibits many other antisocial acts.
I guess you are telling me that YES, homosexuality can be caused in someone who would have normally been heterosexual...That, of course, is obvious by all the males that were sexually abused as boys. You think that they were “born” with that orientation maybe anyhow??? Right. And a person is born with the orientation for babies or other orifices. Give me a break. That is so irrational to think that people are designed to use their bodies in destructive ways. I say NO. Never! You are deluded. It goes against Natural Law Theory and Aquinas! By your logic a rooster can be born to copulate with another rooster. Right...nature would really do that? Hmmmm, maybe it is environmentally caused...or learned. Pavlov could have made the rooster do unnatural acts, I am sure. Then that is a fact....you can condition people also.
True, when children have their sexual identity perverted, it is extremely difficult to combat. I agree with that but I disagree that orientation can’t be changed. It has and has been successful in thousands of cases. Of course, it is not 100% successful. Nothing really ever is and human nature is weak.
That a society has to have restraints on sexual acts...is a given if there is to be a civil society where people have the freedom to raise a healthy family.
Homosexuality should never be endorsed by a society because it destroys all sexual morality. Slippery Slope, you know. If you can say nothing is “wrong” with a homosexual act, then there is no sexual act which can be classified as “evil”. You take us off of the moral understanding of Natural Law Theory which always presupposed a Supreme Being and designer. You give us a Marxist man-creating value system, no longer based on truth. Laws that are just based on the whim who has the power...another nasty slippery slope.
It is very arrogant of you to think your “thinking” on homosexuality is so much more profound and correct, than the thousands of years of Theology and Psychology, and some of the most profound thinkers in history. You really should read the Pope’s encyclical on Love and Marriage. It goes much deeper than physical acts anyway—it unites the body and soul. Homosexual acts ignores the soul, and destroys the body. That is ok for an atheist society, I guess. But you only get totalitarianism in atheist countries and all sorts of inhumanity because there is no moral order.
Anyway....I don’t have any more time to post so I guess this is it. Good luck with you reading.
people that don't understand Freud's theories are always the first to attack him. The man revolutionized psychology and was a genius by anyone's standard. His theories of the subconscious were/are...revolutionary. I agree with the theories of Erikson and Piaget as well. I find no conflict in any of their theories they all work very well to together. IMO. I feel that Piaget explains normal development well but Freud explains abnormal development better. Erikson was a student of Freud and his theories reflect that in that they explain abnormal development quite well also.
there is a need to put moral restraint on actions....or you would have Darwin’s world—survival of the fittest.
we do live in a "survival of the fittest" world. Fitness, to Darwin meant the creature that most successfully passed its DNA onto offspring for whatever reason. A human that produces 4 children is more fit than a human that produces 3 children for example.
You are telling me that nature goes against nature and creates homosexuals “naturally”.
I'm saying that homosexuality is not as unnatural as you would like to believe especially in children. It is the existence of social taboos that directs the sexual development one way or the other. Violating those taboos can and does change the direction
There are no “normal” children born with a desire to copulate with dogs, babies, men, cadavers, etc.
again with your non-sequitur logical fallacies. homosexuality is not equivalent to pedophilia, bestiality, and/or necrophilia? That being said, I guarantee that, biologically speaking, humans (females primarily) are programmed to copulate well before the legal age of consent. pedophilia is just the taboo name we ascribe to a natural state. I realize that is offensive to consider but it is a well known fact that legal age of consent does not coincide with the biological age of consent.
That is so irrational to think that people are designed to use their bodies in destructive ways.
humans are naturally "designed" to be sexual. Society designs them to be less so.
I disagree that orientation can’t be changed. It has and has been successful in thousands of cases
Not according to the APA. They, like Freud, are disreputable to you I'm sure.
Homosexuality should never be endorsed by a society because it destroys all sexual morality.
You think we would be a moral society if we just discriminated against homosexuals a little harder huh? hmmmm...I don't think so.
You really should read the Pope’s encyclical on Love and Marriage
The pope huh? I'm not even going there.
but you only get totalitarianism in atheist countries and all sorts of inhumanity because there is no moral order.
the Taliban has a fairly strict moral order. they're pretty totalitarian too. Perhaps you should move to Afghanistan. It sounds like you'll fit right in actually.