# When did same-gender relations become "wrong"?



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 6, 2004)

Having recently seen Alexander, and Troy, and seen the more recent events in the US to discriminate against same-gender couples, I began to wonder...when did it become "wrong"?

 Based on the rough timelines, 6-8,000 years ago it was ok, 2,000 years ago it was ok, so where and when did the idea form that suggests a wrongness to them?

 Both Achillies and Alexander were what we would call "bi" today, yet managed to be proclaimed great warriors and leaders.  Even in the 1500's, (I think) there were leading individuals like Lord Byron who 'swung both ways'.  So, I have to wonder.

 Where, when and why?
 What religions dictate against same-gender relations?
 etc.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 6, 2004)

Even for the Greeks, same-sex sexual relationships were not "technically" encouraged, although it was an accepted part of the culture.  Men were suppossed to have a wife at home, and possibly get some progeny going, but could form relationships with other men - especially younger men they were teaching - since women were, of course, so inferior.

But of course, it was common practice for same-sex sexual relationships to occur.

I think some of the attitiudes about same-sex relationships is the disgust people had for someone assuming a less powerful role than what they were born with - i.e. same-sex relationships between men were sometimes OK during the early middle ages, but the "dominant" man was less shamed than the "receptive" man.  

Lesbianism was not specifically prohibited in early Middle Age convents - the sexually aggressive woman sometimes being considered to be emulating a man - which was, of course, better than being a woman.  

But those are just parts of the puzzle.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 6, 2004)

Roughly speaking, it seems to be tied to the late Renaissance, the growth of Protestantism, and the appearance of things like sumptuary laws (governed male and female dress) and early biological notions of sexual difference. 

The very general academic take is that much of this was an attack on femininity in all its forms, coupled with an insistence upon re-organizing the Family as a more-productive unit as capitalism developed. 

You might scope out Foucault's "History of Sexuality," books; some issues of a journal called, "Representations;" some of the "A History of Everyday Life," volumes. I'm not up on gay history, so can't recommend anything there....hm, maybe I'll look, which is what guys like us are spozed to do.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 6, 2004)

That's interesting... I have read some of the "History of Everyday Life", I think - really quite good stuff.

I used to study more on the Byzantine/medieval/early Rennaissance times, so anything after that, until my lifetime, I'm more ignorant of it.

I would believe the "attack on femininity" angle - that being perceived as feminine (read: weak, receptive, less perfect, sinful, stupid, etc - depending on the time you lived in) was so horrific for men that same-sex relationships had that cast of horror over them.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 6, 2004)

Seems there is no single answer on when and why, but it looks like it is based on culture and values, or lack there of depending on your viewpoint.

Interestingly how some suggestions point to male dominance, power, sexual deviation and abnormal psychology as causes for the behavior to happen in the first place.

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

The Problem of Pedophilia
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html

HIV cases rise among U.S. gay men
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3076793/

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3&v=PRINT

Same sex relations may be viewed as an attack on values, but what is more damaging is the promiscuous lifestyle that many same sex couples persue. Of course this may be only part of the "puzzle" as to why it is shunned.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 6, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Same sex relations may be viewed as an attack on values, but what is more damaging is the promiscuous lifestyle that many same sex couples persue. Of course this may be only part of the "puzzle" as to shy it is shunned.


I'd like to see one honest piece of evidence that a homosexual is any more promiscuous than any heterosexual. 

And though I don't know when it was decided that same sex pairings were wrong, my interpretation of events is that it was always "accepted" as long as it was in the background. Most men had a wife and produced his heirs and then was involved with another man on the side. Something that was known and tolerated but not discussed or necessarily accepted. There are of course always exceptions to the "rule". Things seemed to have gotten bad and volatile when gays started to be more open and stopped hiding who they were.  I think the AIDS crisis in the 80's/90's when we didn't know what the disease really was, what caused it, but saw it intially spreading among gay men also made things worse and we saw a dramatic decline in any acceptance.  This is just the way I see events as having taken place.


I would also offer this counter to Mr. Mike's articles, especially related to pedophilia.

http://www.rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/PedoMyth.html


Here are some findings from the scientific peer-reviewed journal, "Pediatrics" published in July of 1994. The study was done by Dr. Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. The subjects were 269 sexually abused children seen at Denver Children's Hospital over the course of one year.

​

*1 in 219 girls was molested by a lesbian * 1 out of 50 boys by a gay male.*About 8 in 10 girls were molested by a man who was or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child's mother or another relative. *3 out of 4 boys were abused by males in heterosexual relationships with female relatives. ​

​

2% of the boys in the study were molested by gay males. ​

​

98% of the boys in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 75% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.​

​

0.05% of the girls in the study were molested by a lesbian.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



​

​

99.5% of the girls in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 80% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario. ​

​

If you think that study is unique, I invite you to investigate some more references, all of which report parallel numbers.​

​

Groth, A. Nicholas, and H. Jean Birnbaum, 1978 "Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons", Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175.​

​

"Suggests that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male." [p 609]​

​

Newton, David E., 1978 "Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence", Adolescence, 13, 29.​

​

"Existing studies provide no reason to believe that anything other than a random connection exists between homosexual behavior and child molestation. The typical offender is a heterosexual male." [p 610]​


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 6, 2004)

Interesting sites you link to, Mike.  They all seem to have their agendas.

Saying someone has "no values" is a nice way of dismissing someone else's viewpoint, and holding yourself to be superior.

I'm not sure why you cited the rise in HIV among gay men as a comment on homosexuality in general.

In terms of promiscuity - gay men are stereotyped as being sexually promiscuious, although I have a feeling that they fall within the range of heterosexual men out there who are the more traditional "skirt-chasers".

Lesbians, in contrast, tend to have a very small number of partners over their lifetimes.  

Perhaps it has to do with testosterone poisoning of some men in general?


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 6, 2004)

Well, I could have posted the direct URL's to the researcher's sites, but this was easier. I'd be curious to your version of their agenda as compared to the rainbowalliance's. :uhyeah: 

..and I disn't mention anyone as having no values. The "depending on you're viewpoint" line was general, not meant to express my own.

Oh well, let the red marks fly..LOL

If someone thinks they can debunk the numbers or methodology of these reports, by ALL *Edited to conform to MT's Rules & Policy* means. But if we're gonna talk about it, let's get it all on the table shall we?


----------



## Bester (Dec 6, 2004)

I think it was when Adam met Steve, and Eve was upset because Alice was not created yet.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 6, 2004)

I think it would vary even from culture to culture even in the ancient times.  People have given examples of the ancient Greeks and their view (pointless trivia time...the word lesbian comes from the greek isle of lesbos).  But, if you go to Israel and the Jews you will see the in their culture it was viewed as a sin punishable by death.

In fact going through old jewish law in the Bible you will see that to immasculate yourself was also a sin and proper temple procedure called for "testicle checkers" to allow people into the male only areas.

Since most of western society now is influenced by the judeo-christian beliefs/values I would say this is where it came from, in my opinion.  As their influence spread and more people were converted the view also probably spread.


----------



## Bester (Dec 6, 2004)

I would tend to agree.



"Testicle checkers", sounds like a glamourous job that.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 8, 2004)

Do people honestly believe that if you list a bunch of websites, then it legitimizes their personal beliefs?  The problem with the internet is that you have to look closely at which information is authoritative and which is garbage.  ANYONE can have a website.  I have 3 myself, and my site that deals with media and political issues cites more authoritative and reliable sources than those I've seen listed as "documentation" above.

For example, there's this "authoritative" citation:



> Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=27431


This cites the renowned author, Judith Reisman PhD, president of "The Institute for Media Education," her own personal organization, represented by her own personal website, drjudithreisman.org.  She wrote and self-published the authoritative tome, "*Kinsey, Sex and Fraud*" which is sold mainly by fundamentalist Christian organizations. Is Reisman's PhD in medicine?  Psychology?  Sociology even?  Nope.  She has a doctorate in mass communications.  And communicate she does.


----------



## peligro1 (Dec 8, 2004)

This is just my opinion, but I don't think they've ever been "right".  Sure you can plead ignorance before Christ and the Bible, but that's really a terrible excuse.  I believe they've always been frowned upon.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 8, 2004)

peligro1 said:
			
		

> This is just my opinion, but I don't think they've ever been "right".  Sure you can plead ignorance before Christ and the Bible, but that's really a terrible excuse.  I believe they've always been frowned upon.



In which cultures, praytell??

In cultural anthropology, you'll find that some cultures openly accept homosexuality, some wantonly discriminate against it, some tolerate it "in the background", and some have no idea what it is (a very unusual situation)!!

Humanity is a motley crew. Deal with it.

In regards to the religion angle, though, it _is_ true that most (if not all) of the world's major religions prohibit (or at least advise against) "sexual immorality" --- Buddhism included. Then again, all those moral prescriptions were before the Age of Reason.

Laterz.


----------



## peligro1 (Dec 9, 2004)

Someone just got kicked out of my work for being homosexual.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2004)

What do the laws say about it in El Salvador?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 9, 2004)

peligro1 said:
			
		

> Someone just got kicked out of my work for being homosexual.


That's a shame.  How was the person "found out"?  Does this person have any rights under the law to get their job back/get a new job?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 9, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Is Reisman's PhD in medicine?  Psychology?  Sociology even?  Nope.  She has a doctorate in mass communications.  And communicate she does.



Awww, c'mon, Phoenix... clearly a doctor in mass communications with an anti-gay agenda has more credibility than an institute for sexual research at a major Big-Ten state-sponsored University with some of the finest psychological and sociological researchers in the world!

You're clearly a a biased elitist.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 9, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> What do the laws say about it in El Salvador?



Many Latin cultures, being strongly Catholic, are explicitly anti-homosexual, both legally and otherwise.

Perhaps the World Net Daily would approve.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 9, 2004)

After flipping through the sites suggested, one can say that same-sex relations became wrong right about the time that bigots learned how to couch their hatreds in pseudo-scientific terms.

It's one thing to have moral precepts that teach homosexuality is wrong. It's quite another to summon up a network of phony, ginned-up, "studies," that attempt to provide scientific justification for one's moral beliefs.


----------



## Zepp (Dec 9, 2004)

An article related to the topic: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041209/wl_afp/canadagaysmarriage_041209223253 



> Canada's Supreme Court lifts final barrier to gay marriage
> 
> World - AFP
> 
> OTTAWA (AFP) - Canada's Supreme Court gave the government the go-ahead to change the definition of marriage, a famous victory for gay and lesbian groups battling for equal rights....



Yea Canada!


----------



## Darksoul (Dec 11, 2004)

-To me, I see it as an issue of control. If a person or group doesn't like something that really isn't affecting the quality of life for all should accept that some people are different. Oh statistics can say anything you want them to. So let us say there is this one guy, who happens to be gay, and he molests a little boy. Now, does that mean all gay men will molests little boys? I don't think so. Its nothing more than another form of discrimination on the part of those who will not accept others for being different and will do something, such as abusing gays/bis/lesbians, be it verbally or physically, or perhaps vote for or enact laws that will directly affect the lives of these people.

-For example, the controversy concerning marriage. For a nation that was founded on a freedom of religion, especially to escape persecution, look how it has repeated itself here by the people and the gov't against the people. Who said certain religious institutions have any claim whatsoever to the concept of marriage, which has exisited for eons? If any group wishes no homosexuality within their churches or organizations or whatever, thats fine. But those who are gay, etc, should be allowed to practice, worship, preach whatever they desire, including marriage. If that means they have to create they're own centers, organizations, religions, so be it.

-Once again, let me get back to the part about control. How often do we fear something in the world, especially something we either don't know about, or cannot understand? That kind of fear, that kind of paranoia is strong, so strong its lead to tragedies on grand and small scales throughout history. And how do we usually deal with that kind of fear? We find ways to control it. And if I don't agree with others being "different", I may feel possessed to do something about it, to protect my way of life.

-Judge people as individuals, standing on their own merits and actions. Just as you would for a martial artist. If you went into a tournament, and found out your next opponent was gay, how would you react? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Before the names, lables, stereotypes, colors, nationalities, orientations, when you get down to basics, one thing binds us all together: WE ARE ALL HUMAN. Everything else divides us.


A---)


----------



## Kreth (Dec 13, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Many Latin cultures, being strongly Catholic, are explicitly anti-homosexual, both legally and otherwise.


I'm putting on my flame-retardant boxers as I type this, but the Catholic stand on homosexuality seems to be that it is acceptable only when a priest is involved... 

Jeff


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2004)

Man I'm breaking all my rules today! I normally dont get involved in these threads, but there have been some interesting and very good points made here and I wanted to add some of my own "opinion" or "beliefs". 

 We have talked about the greeks and their openly accepted gay lifestyles, but lets not neccessarily combine the lifestyles of being gay with being bi-sexual. In my humble opinion, they are different. For the greeks did have a wife and family usually, and as much as their homosexual realtionships on the side were accepted, so were heterosexual relationships "on the side". If we ask the question, "when did homosexual lifestyles become wrong" I think we also have to understand and look at when relationships while being "married"; homosexual or otherwise, became wrong. There was a time and a place that these relationships with other women while being "married" was openly accepted, and they fit the same time periods and geographical locations. 

  Just my 2 cents,
    7sm


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 13, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Awww, c'mon, Phoenix... clearly a doctor in mass communications with an anti-gay agenda has more credibility than an institute for sexual research at a major Big-Ten state-sponsored University with some of the finest psychological and sociological researchers in the world!
> 
> You're clearly a a biased elitist.


I'm sure you're right.  But I guess I just never understood what's so interesting about who's doing whom that it should be part of our national agenda.


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 14, 2004)

> I'm putting on my flame-retardant boxers as I type this, but the Catholic stand on homosexuality seems to be that it is acceptable only when a priest is involved...




This is very true.  A relative of mine is a former priest.  He's told my family that homosexuality is rampant in the priesthood, and other priests and ex-priests have confirmed this to me.  The church looks the other way when it's their priests involved.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 14, 2004)

As another interesting point....in several conversations over the years I've seen a trend.

Guys who are very much in the "2 guys icky" crowd would usually do the "I love lesbians" bit.  So, 2 guys is evil, wrong and disgusting, but 2 gals is soft, nice, exciting and delicious?

Interestingly enough, in converstations with women, I've found that the opposite is often true, though not as greatly.

Lesbianism amoungst nuns has also historically been ignored, and I do know of at least 1 convent across a river from a monestary in France I believe, what was separated by an underground tunnel.  The tunnel was filled with the corpses of the children of the priests and nuns who would 'commune' together.  Hypocracy in the Church traces back centuries, so is nothing new.


----------



## Kreth (Dec 14, 2004)

IMO, there is no argument against same-sex marriage that is not religious in nature. As such, I can't see a justifiable reason that it can be banned by our government.

Jeff


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 14, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> In which cultures, praytell??
> 
> In cultural anthropology, you'll find that some cultures openly accept homosexuality, some wantonly discriminate against it, some tolerate it "in the background", and some have no idea what it is (a very unusual situation)!!
> 
> ...


Cultures have either tolerated or even encouraged same sex relationships in some way for along time in a wide number of places.  When did it become 'wrong?' by the modern sense?  I would put it at the moment that Western perceptions of 'marriage based on love, affection and fidelity' would be the beginning of the 'end' of acceptable homosexual relations.

Greek/Spartans and Thebans (along with other Greek nation states/cultures) encouraged same sex relations to build espirit de Corps among troops.  It was fine as long as it didn't interfere with the marriage as political/cultural perpetuation machine of the day.

The shift in perception of marriage as more than just a contractual/political arrangement to one of romantic/loving/spiritual bonding would be the time of change IMO.

Even in China and Japan, homosexual -even pederastic practices- were acceptable parts of the culture as long as they didn't interfere with the creation of heirs/inheritors to the estates of the family.  Western culture introduced in both those cultures helped squash that view.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 14, 2004)

> I would put it at the moment that Western perceptions of 'marriage based on love, affection and fidelity' would be the beginning of the 'end' of acceptable homosexual relations.


 Paul, would you care to expand on that?  I'm having trouble understanding the implication of this statement.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 14, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Paul, would you care to expand on that? I'm having trouble understanding the implication of this statement.


 
Basically, when marriage became something that was a Western/Judeo-Christian 'sacrament' or an earthly sign of God's presence in the world (though it isn't ONLY a christian idea that marriage is a 'forever thing').

Before this idea became more commonly believed, marriage was something used to strengthen political/family ties.

You married your daughter off (after enticing a young man with her dowry) to a family that would improve your/her standing and network.  She didn't choose as much as the family did the selecting.  When this was the common practice, marriage was about building networks.  Remember the whole stink around Romeo and Juliet.  Marry for family connection vs. marry for love.

Once marriage was commonly scene as a 'union between a man and woman as a sign of divinity/God's grace' it became sacred and ALL other forms of intimacy were taboo (homosexuallity, extra marital affairs, concubines...) - though they still existed in reality - they were not as acceptable/seemly.  People had to go underground with the habit - it never disappeared.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 14, 2004)

So, if traditionally, mariage was used to cement alliances, forge partnerships and improve social standing....what does that say for the significance of a constitutional admendment to 'protect the sanctity of mariage'?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 14, 2004)

If you're bi-curious, Bob, just go for it. You don't have to justify it here on the forum . We already expect the "outlier" in you to come out...this is just a new way.

Unless (in the spirit of Groucho Marx & the Complex Question with Presuppositions): Are you too comfortable in your closet, or are you ready to go public?:boing2: 

D


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Dec 15, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Having recently seen Alexander, and Troy, and seen the more recent events in the US to discriminate against same-gender couples, I began to wonder...when did it become "wrong"?
> 
> Based on the rough timelines, 6-8,000 years ago it was ok, 2,000 years ago it was ok, so where and when did the idea form that suggests a wrongness to them?
> 
> ...



While the Greeks and Romans may have been doing the nasty in nasty ways, the Israelites were prohibited from incest, homosexuality, and sodomy with animals from the time of Moses around 1,300 B.C.E.  

Please see Leviticus Chapter 18.


----------



## Raewyn (Dec 15, 2004)

Here in New zealand our government has just passed a Civil Union Bill which has had alot of opposition but not enough to stop is being passed and made law:

{quote}
*Civil Union Bill becomes law*

09 December 2004




By PETER WILSON 

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]*Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships became law today, and from April 26 next year couples can commit themselves to the new civil union.*[/font] 


[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Parliament voted 65-55 to pass the controversial legislation which has polarised opinion and split political parties. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]During the past three days MPs opposed to it fought to change the Civil Union Bill and to force a referendum on it. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]They failed, and today the majority on the third reading was the same as it has been through most of the legislative process. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]The bill also applies to opposite-sex couples, but it does not change the Marriage Act which still applies only to men and women. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]After MPs cast their conscience votes and the final count was announced, the debating chamber was drowned in applause from the public galleries. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]MPs embraced, cheered and congratulated each other while Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki and his followers glowered down. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Outside Parliament rival rallies attracted about 400 people, with opponents slightly outnumbering supporters. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]While the bill's backers played music and threw orange balloons, opponents stood in silent protest. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Conservation Minister Chris Carter, who is planning a civil union with his partner Peter Kaiser as soon as the law is implemented, told Parliament history was being created. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"Today I sense tremendous joy and enthusiasm," he said during the third reading debate. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"We will have an opportunity we have always been denied." [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]The minister in charge of the bill, David Benson-Pope, said the legislation took nothing away from marriage. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"Once this bill is passed, and the sky doesn't fall in, the opposition to it will very quickly evaporate," he said. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"It gives the simplest of things - the formal recognition and respect by our laws for the individual choices of New Zealanders."  {quote}[/font]


----------



## Kreth (Dec 15, 2004)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> While the Greeks and Romans may have been doing the nasty in nasty ways, the Israelites were prohibited from incest, homosexuality, and sodomy with animals from the time of Moses around 1,300 B.C.E.
> 
> Please see Leviticus Chapter 18.


This letter, while an urban legend, points out some other interesting laws referenced in the Old Testament.

Jeff


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 15, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> If you're bi-curious, Bob, just go for it. You don't have to justify it here on the forum . We already expect the "outlier" in you to come out...this is just a new way.
> 
> Unless (in the spirit of Groucho Marx & the Complex Question with Presuppositions): Are you too comfortable in your closet, or are you ready to go public?:boing2:
> 
> D


Since when does posting a thread about a pertinent social-political issue imply sexual persuasion?  Or religious or political or anything, for that matter?
Not funny, IMO.

Regarding what NightingGale posted re: priests.  I remember a statistic of about 30% of all priests are probably gay. Perhaps, the priestly vow of celibacy is what lead them into priesthood, when the possibility of acting on their desires is markedly diminished  (understated, to be sure).

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> If you're bi-curious, Bob, just go for it. You don't have to justify it here on the forum . We already expect the "outlier" in you to come out...this is just a new way.
> 
> Unless (in the spirit of Groucho Marx & the Complex Question with Presuppositions): Are you too comfortable in your closet, or are you ready to go public?:boing2:
> 
> D


 Hehehe....Naw...no closet here.  I'm comfortable in my own masculinity and at peace with my female side....then again, I live in Buffalo, and as my GF is constantly complaining, there just aint no 'hot guys' here.  :rofl:  So, it's very unlikely that during my next grappling match, that I'll suddenly 'come out' and ask my opponent out for an espresso.  :rofl::rofl:

Personally, getting back to serious here, I don't see how it matters.  You like what you like, you don't like what you don't like.  Love isn't a limited concept, from where I stand. I don't have to be sexually attracted or involved to love someone, male or female.  The ancient Greeks seemed to understand that.  I'm just curious when we lost it.

Now, back to me, and my closet... true story.  In my early 20's I went through a short 'goth' stage.  The eyeliner, nailpolish, lipstick, etc.  My mother tells me she knows I'm gay, and it's alright.  I should just admit it.  Mind you, at this point in time, I'm fighting over my kid, dating 1 girl and chasing another girl.  No guys involved there.  If you look at what has covered my bedroom, office and apt. walls over the last 15-20 years, you would find rock posters, playboy centerfolds, and old vinyl lp covers.  I think the guys hiding are those with all the body builder and wrestler posters everywhere.....Then again, maybe bisexuality is really prevalient in the martial arts....

How many of you have 1 or more pictures of that hot sexy beast Bruce Lee, all sweated up, hangin on a wall some where?  Hmmm...... :rofl:

:wavey:


----------



## Kreth (Dec 15, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If you look at what has covered my bedroom, office and apt. walls over the last 15-20 years, you would find rock posters...


Two words: Rob Halford... 

Jeff


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 15, 2004)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> While the Greeks and Romans may have been doing the nasty in nasty ways, the Israelites were prohibited from incest, homosexuality, and sodomy with animals from the time of Moses around 1,300 B.C.E.
> 
> Please see Leviticus Chapter 18.



It should be noted that the Bible has no weight whatsoever as a historical document. 

The laws you were referencing were probably not created until sometime between 500 BCE and 200 CE, coinciding roughly with Jewish freedom from Babylonian captivity (in which a new priesthood arose to form order in the new Hebrew society).

In all likelihood, the Hebrews were not strictly 'monotheistic' before this time --- in which the new priesthood took many pre-existing, separate deities (El Elyon, Yahweh, Adonai, El Elohim, and so on) and cleverly scripted them into a single deity. Even in Proverbs, we see reference to the goddess Wisdom.

Laterz.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2004)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Two words: Rob Halford...
> 
> Jeff


 Never was much of a priest fan....


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Even in Proverbs, we see reference to the goddess Wisdom.


 Would you mind pointing me to that reference as well? Sorry, I hadn't heard that and I'd like to remember it.

 7sm


----------



## Kreth (Dec 15, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Never was much of a priest fan....


I saw him (with his solo band, Halford) open for Queensryche/Maiden on the Brave New World tour in MSG. Three of the best singers in metal, IMO. Plus, it can't hurt the gay community to have someone like Rob out there, definitely goes against the usual stereotypes...

Jeff


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2004)

I recall a discussion I had a ways back, that refered to a Hebrew Goddess.  I'll be checking my links as I do recall tagging it for revisiting....

Jeff,
  I recall there beign a big stink when Rob finally came out, some issues with the label, etc.  Don't follow the metal scene like I used to, but would you say that same-gender relationships are accepted more/less/or the same as the average of society?


----------



## Kreth (Dec 15, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Don't follow the metal scene like I used to, but would you say that same-gender relationships are accepted more/less/or the same as the average of society?


AFAIK, Rob is still the only openly gay "big name" in the metal scene. I think now the fans come from two groups, the inbred morons who will stop buying albums because "the singer's a fag, dude" and the real fans who don't care as long as he keeps making good music.

Jeff


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 15, 2004)

Geoff Tate of Ryche...one of the best vocalists in metal.

Two words for the best vocalist ever: Freddie Mercury.  Name of the band?

*Mellissa*: Get a grip. Part of human nature is to seek love wher'er the heart whilst. Supressing that nature with imposed moral codes is partly what has led to the intense social stigma regarding same-gender relations. Do you know the prevalence of substance abuse and suicide among gay or bi-sexual populations? Domestic violence? Some have used the stats that do exist to show "That there proves them all are a bunch of F'd up pups". I offer this as an alternate hypothesis: How much ambient pressure can a mind endure before it begins to cave to the demands of stress, anxiety, etc? What if, everywhere you went, and everything you did, you were glared at by disapproving eyes? If your friends and family abandoned you strictly because you followed the desires of your heart?

While I was in Italy, they had a great saying: The heart wants what the heart wants. They were far more tolerant of extramarital liasons, etc. And to dine with them, a much happier genre of folk.

Prejuice raises it's head in many forms, and all are ugly. Another part of human nature is "gallows humor"...to find the joyful & ludricous in otherwise somber circumstances. Will you set a social pariah against those who express this aspect of human nature?  Same disease; different application.  If it's all the same to you, you keep your disease, and I'll keep my inappropriate sense of humor.

I am (unfortunately, perhaps) straight. Working in Alternative Medicine, I have many professional contacts, and dear friends, who are gleefully as gay as the day is long. I've also tried to help as many have passed from this world, slipping off the plate before their fullness of years, then battled with trying to find a church to hold services in because their lifestyles were unholy and well-known.  Additionally, when "gay bashing" was at a peak in Laguna Beach, CA (the So. Cali. gay mecca) in the early and mid '80's, I stuck myself out there to get between the punkers and the guys that were just trying to hook up, and have nasty scars for defending those who refused to defend themselves (one gentleman called me "crusader rabbit", and the nickname stuck for eons)...not to be a bravado, hollywood-action adrenaline junkie, but because what was happening was wrong, and the local PD wasn't up for doing much about it (after all, the victims of these hate crimes were in a park past curfew, and shouldn't be there anyway). I suggest you check yourself before checking me; context is everything.

Dave


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 15, 2004)

_This is not what I want to see in the study. Keep it polite, or keep it private - Flatlander_

Again with the attempts at regulating social behavior though disapproval. How many of you actually have spent any time with a gay man or woman? Gone partying at a gender-bender bar? (or were you too nervous you might be tempted to switch teams?) The best ribbings you will ever get are from those living outside the box. What gall to sanction behavior on the behalf of people whose lives are challenged daily because of behavioral sanctions.

Dave


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 15, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I think the guys hiding are those with all the body builder and wrestler posters everywhere.....Then again, maybe bisexuality is really prevalient in the martial arts....


Hey now, watch it!  :uhyeah:


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 15, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> _This is not what I want to see in the study. Keep it polite, or keep it private - Flatlander_
> 
> Again with the attempts at regulating social behavior though disapproval. How many of you actually have spent any time with a gay man or woman? Gone partying at a gender-bender bar? (or were you too nervous you might be tempted to switch teams?) The best ribbings you will ever get are from those living outside the box. What gall to sanction behavior on the behalf of people whose lives are challenged daily because of behavioral sanctions.
> 
> Dave



Dave,

I feel it was in poor taste to quote flatlanders private rep point comments on a public thread; it has nothing to do with the thread, plus it was private communication.

I think that if you disagreed with the comment you should have taken it PM, and kept the thread on topic...

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 15, 2004)

Now that I have read this thread (and been sucked into it), here are my comments;

1. Priesthood: I have yet to see any real evidence that there is this great homosexual epidemic in the priesthood, beyond of course heresay, made up statistics, and illogical assumptions. I think that the idea that "all/most/alot of priests are fags" is more of a result of a culture that buys into talkshow and daytime T.V. pseudo-psychology and spirituality; that "everyone was made for somebody" and "everybody has a soul-mate" and "one needs a mate to be complete" and so on and happy-go-luckily so on, and insert recent divorce rate here:__. The idea that some people are happy to be alone, and that maybe everybody doesn't have a soulmate, and that, heck, you just might not be a lesser person if your decide to remain single all your life slaps this pseudo-psychology in the face. Taking a vow of celebacy in the priesthood (or elseware for that matter) slaps this pseudo-psychology in the face as well.

This, added with a few scandels and problems, must mean that anyone who wants to be celebate MUST secretly be gay. Umm, ya...makes perfect sense...  

If one can present real evidence that there is a "epidemic," something I have yet to see in these discussions, then I would be happy to look at it and have a logical conversation.  

2. Homosexuality and it's "wrongness": 

I don't know what we mean by 'wrong' here. I think we have to define "wrong" before we can have a real conversation on this.

I think that there are some major 'politically incorrect' details that many extreme "gay rights activists" tend to miss. One is that homosexuals have ALWAYS been a minority group. For the majority, gay sex has always been, well, undesirable by the general populus. Evidence through the written word as far back as it goes seems to have proved this. Now, if you can name, with proof, anytime in history when the general populus didn't consider it kinda gross (for example) for one dude to do another dude in the poop-shoot, then I'll go outside and make snow angels in the nude. :barf:  :flushed: 

Many people want to paint this picture that everyone was running around in Athens happily screwing one another regardless of gender until the damn Christian right came along and ruined the toy party. Sorry, but I think that this is a pretty incorrect view of history. :bs1: 

So, if "wrong" means "undesirable by the general public," then I would say that homosexuality has ALWAYS been "wrong."

Now, if "wrong" means "a threat to our society," then yes, then we can probably blame the Christian right. It would seem that many cultures have been tolerant and accepting of homosexual behavior in history (which is not the same as "desirable" btw).

It seems that intolerant judeo-christians (not all christians, just intolerant ones) seem to have been the forerunners of persecution towards homosexuals and homosexual behavior, and have been the creators of the idea that homosexual behavior will somehow ruin our society. I've yet to see any logical evidence where a "gay epidemic" has ruined any society in history; and if you can name an instance, then it's naked time and snow angels for me.  

I wish that activists for any cause (gay rights or otherwise) would stop being so extreme to where they feel they have to outright make stuff up; it only pushes people away. I also really REALLY wish that certian christian anti-gay rights people would realize that you don't have to find homosexual behavior desireable, nor do you even have to agree with it morally, to be tolerant, or to let individuals live their lives the way that they want without persecution.

I also wish I could do snow angels in the nude without getting arrested...but I guess I'll just have to dream..... :lookie:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> How many of you actually have spent any time with a gay man or woman?


 Every year at the Toronto Trek convention, plus other events from that particular area of interest that occur throughout the year. A number of my friends from that con are involved somehow in the gay community. I also do have at least 2 clients who are.

 We also have at least 5 bi/gay members that I am aware of here.



> Gone partying at a gender-bender bar? (or were you too nervous you might be tempted to switch teams?)


 Would hitting the room party of the Queer Continueum at the last 2 TorontoTreks count? (They have the best snack bar outta all the room parties there!)



> The best ribbings you will ever get are from those living outside the box.


 I'll avoid most of the stories..they will disturb some folks...one of the best involves me at a local radio station doing a GoldDust impression.  For those not into pro-wrestling, GoldDust was a very 'flaming' character in the WWF several years back (I think this is like 6/7).  The short version: I did the voice perfectly, as well as the mannerisms.  The co-host of the radio show left, too weirded out to continue.  The sound booth guys were dying laughing.  The dumb jocks phoned in that they were coming down to 'straighten out that fag'. (Yeah, like a local college radio show will get a top tier superstar in for an interview....) The host of the show wouldn't speak to me for a year afterwards.  (Turns out, I did the shtick too well. LOL)

 Best part?   The jocks walking in as I was walking out wanting to know where GoldDust was.  Little-peepee syndrome at it's finest. 



> What gall to sanction behavior on the behalf of people whose lives are challenged daily because of behavioral sanctions.





> Dave


 Dave,  Speaking as a member, not staff here...I think there is a misunderstanding.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 15, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Dave,
> 
> I feel it was in poor taste to quote flatlanders private rep point comments on a public thread; it has nothing to do with the thread, plus it was private communication.
> 
> ...


Perhaps you are correct, and if so, I apologize for the loss of decorum. I have not been familiar with the idea of the rep point system being private. I did percieve the act as a judgemental irony relative to the context of the thread, and sought to address it as such. I will refrain from such replies in the future in honor of "thread drift", and the privacy of the rep point system.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2004)

Paul,
  The idea od you, doing nude snow angels.....dude, wouldn't you suffer from 'shrinkage'? :rofl:

As to the 'When was it accepted'....that is simple.
Up to at least the 1st century AD.

Classical Greek culture was not only tolerant of homosexuality, it embraced it.

The most well known form of homosexuality was pederasty, where an older male teacher would take on a younger male student to teach him hunting, warfare and other adult male skills. 

This isn't the only documented homosexuality in ancient Greek culture. In his book, The Construction of Homosexuality, the NYU Institute for Law and Society professor David Greenberg writes "in Greece, sexual preferences were frequently not exclusive." Not only were they not exclusive, they were not deemed immoral, or something that would reflect poorly on those whose sexual preferences were exclusive. Well-known figures of the time such as Julius Caesar, granted he was Roman, were known as "every woman's husband, and every man's wife." [Cato]

See http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Greeks.html for an interesting look at some of the concepts.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Two words for the best vocalist ever: Freddie Mercury.  Name of the band?


 My thoughts exactly!!! Queen rocked them all, and quite openly gay as well.

 7sm


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 15, 2004)

Dude...Bob...   

The sources used for that site above are identical to what groups like NAMBLA use to justify sex with young boys. And, like groups like NAMBLA, that site seems to be only choosing to recognize the facts that fit their agenda and worldview rather then recognizing the whole picture.

In Dovers "Greek Homosexuality", he also explains that pederasty was not a cultural norm; it was something that only the very privledged took part in. Remember, a lot of ancient Greek and Roman lifestyles of the Rich and Famous involved hedonistic indulgance and control of others; eating all day and barfing frequently in vomitoriums, and being catered too by many slaves, for instance. Orgies, dominating another sexes, and dominating the same sex was all part of the egomaniacal control of Greek Royalty. This was also explained in Dover. So, because their is evidence that the Rich did it (and we still don't know if the motive was same-sex preference or dominance or some other reason), and had their spiritual advisors create religious beliefs around it, Homosexuality was certianly more acceptable. However, pederasty was not a common practice among the majority, nor is there any evidence that homosexuality was a mainstream practice among the majority in any of these studies. Most reputable scholars on the subject will say the same thing I am saying here.

But, I guess if one only sees what one wants to see, then sure...life was one big orgy with fat hairy men and preteenaged boys frolicing in the meadows until the Christians spoiled all the fun...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2004)

Paul,
  Yeah....I missed adding the quotes in on that...

Everything between "Classical Greek culture was not only tolerant of homosexuality, it embraced it." and  "See http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Greeks.html for an interesting look at some of the concepts." should have been in quotes.

My point is that regardless of the 'depth', it wasn't "evil", it just "was", if that makes sence.   (As to the NAMBLA folks.....that is definately 1 group I have no tolerence for.)


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 15, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> My point is that regardless of the 'depth', it wasn't "evil", it just "was", if that makes sence.



O.K.; I can agree to that. The Greeks were definatily more excepting and tolerant of homosexuality.

What I wonder is if there were other religions that considered it unexceptable besides Judeo-Christian ones... :idunno:


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 16, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> ?
> 
> *Mellissa*: Prejuice raises it's head in many forms, and all are ugly. Another part of human nature is "gallows humor"...to find the joyful & ludricous in otherwise somber circumstances. Will you set a social pariah against those who express this aspect of human nature? Same disease; different application. If it's all the same to you, you keep your disease, and I'll keep my inappropriate sense of humor.
> 
> ...


Because I object to what I feel was "school boy" name-calling, and I thought your so called "gallows humor" wasn't funny, now I am prejudiced? 

GGA. 

The statistics I brought up about priests were from Time or Newsweek. I didn't make them up, although it might be argued that the reporters of that magazine drew 'em out of a hat.

Speaking re my particular "sky-god", my church welcomes all people including gays and lesbians, but that doesn't mean we accept their lifestyle. Nor will we allow them to marry or be ordained ministers. Please don't start flaming me. Church politics and disciplines belong in a different thread.

PS. I have friends who live way out in the country in the middle of nowhere. *Tulisan* can make all the naked snow angels he wants. (of course, we don't really have snow here, yet. But naked mud angels might be fun)

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> We have talked about the greeks and their openly accepted gay lifestyles, but lets not neccessarily combine the lifestyles of being gay with being bi-sexual.



I don't think that you can separate the two.  I personally believe that being Gay or Strait falls on a spectrum.  Bisexual is in the middle of the spectrum and there are very few people who really exist on both ends.  Annecdotally, this makes sense.  Most Gay people I know still find people of the opposite sex attractive in the same way that most Strait people I know are able to differentiate between an attractive member of their sex and one who is not.  

Also, as Bob earlier pointed out, the _two guys icky_ crowd is usually pro _two girls _ or even _two guys and one girl_...aka the line is blurred.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 16, 2004)

I wouldn't say that a guy who likes the idea of two women together is necessarily bisexual; I think that is an incorrect assumption. That argument doesn't blur the lines. Its not whether your pro "two girls" or "two guys icky" we are talking about active participation, not watching. Also, I dont think being gay is defined the way you describe it. Finding someone of the same sex attractive is a gross understatement to what being gay is. Just because someone who is gay finds a person of the opposite sex to be "attractive" isn't pushing them into the bisexual "group". I like to look at impressionist paintings, but I dont consider myself an impressionist painter. Every friend I've had that is gay (male or female) has definitely make distinctions between being gay and being bisexual. You made my point yourself, if the gay person is able to find a person of opposite sex attractive *in the same way* that a straight person can differentiate between people of the same sex, then that means nothing, unless your saying the straight person who can say a person of the same sex is attractive is now gay or bisexual. That person doesnt cease to be straight, so the gay person in our scenario wouldn't cease to be gay or turn bisexual. We are talking about a complete sexual preference, not just finding someone attractive. I think that is playing down what being gay is, and most people I know that are gay would disagree with you.

  7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 16, 2004)

I always find it interesting that when a man rapes a boy, homosexuality is to blame.  When a man rapes a girl we never seem to blame heterosexuality.  

Note the majority of victims of molestation are girls.  The ratio of reported molestations of girls is greater than two to one.  

http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html

On the same site you'll find reference to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that 98% of perpetrators of sexual assault on boys reported they were heterosexual.  

Researchers Groth and Birnbaum report in another study "The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data&#8230; In our twelve years of work with child molesters, we have found&#8230; the child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in an adult sexual relationship is heterosexual. The adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the homosexual male." 

(A.N. Groth and H.J. Birnbaum, "Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons", Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1978, 7:175-181.)

Every one of the perpetrators in this study was either an exclusive heterosexual, a bisexual with a predominantly heterosexual orientation, or a fixated pedophile with no sexual interest in adults.

Our culture seems to want to homogenize sexuality as much as we can and to deny variance.  It is difficult for some of us here to accept homsexuality versus heterosexuality--much less acknowledge varying degrees of bisexuality.  Gays themselves often reject the latter notion, preferring also to think in black and white terms.  We're drawn to simplification.

In our efforts to simplify our categories we lump pedophiles in with homosexuals.  This double demonization unfairly stigmatizes homosexuals, and the tone has become shrill and paranoid.  

The Family Research Council's website offers a 31 page report titled "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys."  Focus on the Family alleges that a child molester is 17 times more likely to be gay than straight.

Much of the Right's statistics come from discredited psycholigist Paul Cameron.  Cameron has perpetrated the notion that 44% of all serial killers are homosexual; and that 2/3rds of homosexual men ingest "biologically signifcant amounts" of feces.  The American Psychological Association dropped Cameron in 1983 for ethics violations, and he's been censured by four other professional associations and a federal court.

This whole issue reminds many of the old act of "Blood Libel," where Jews in the twelfth century were accused of kidnapping Christian children so they could use their blood in ritualistic sacrifices by mixing it in with Passover bread.  Jews by the hundreds were rounded up and slaughtered or burned alive.

The rumor has persisted ever since.  


Regards,



Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 16, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Speaking re my particular "sky-god", my church welcomes all people including gays and lesbians, but that doesn't mean we accept their lifestyle. Nor will we allow them to marry or be ordained ministers.


 How sweet and accepting of you.  This reminds me a bit of racist relatives of mine who always protest that "some of my best friends are*Edited to conform to MT Rules & Policies*  "


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 16, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> So, if traditionally, mariage was used to cement alliances, forge partnerships and improve social standing....what does that say for the significance of a constitutional admendment to 'protect the sanctity of mariage'?


The idea of marriage sanctity in relation to American POV is still post "Love Marriage" views.

Legally, the 'sancitity of marriage' also protects the propery/inheritance and 'citizen making machine' of the man/woman union that is just not biologically possible in same sex 'marriage.'

The whole view of sexual 'variety' shall we say is/has not always been viewed the way it is now by Judeo/Christian followers.  In the Old testament there is a reference to Lot (I believe) offering his daughters to the mob of Sodom (or was it Gamora?) to use for their various sexual pleasures instead of the agents of God/Angels that appeared to him for the purpose of warning him about the destruction of the city/God's wrath.

There are also accounts of incestual marriages in the OT.  These were considered acceptable because it secured the tribal/family wealth from an outsider's chance of inheriting it and taking it way from the family.

Remember that before Industrialization, family/aristocracy/estates were the source of business/income/protection more than a national government or some big business with a health plan.  As civilization evolved to a nations and gov's provided many of those services that families had to in the past, people were free to re-evaluate the why's and what for's of marriage, education,....

That is why I don't really take the divorce statistics so hard...people might not have divorced as much in the past (or didn't talk about it as much either), but genger/social/class/caste roles were more clearly defined and some folks had to endure abuse, infidellity, servitude....because they had no other options.  Even as recently as 50 years ago, a 'long marriage' does not automatically mean a quality relationship.  It just means that it was considered 'better' to stay together (even if she was a horrible drunk or he was a raging womanizer...) than to separate.  Who would keep the house for the man?  Who would provide the 'bacon' for the housewife?

Money, quality of life, educational/career opportunities... have helped redefine the gender roles and the social focus from 'society' to 'me/fulfillment'


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 16, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> How sweet and accepting of you. This reminds me a bit of racist relatives of mine who always protest that "some of my best friends are <*edited to conform to MT Rules & Policies*"[/QUOTE">*edited to conform to MT Rules & Policies*"


Gee it sounded more like "love the sinner, hate the sin" to me....

It is at least a step in the right direction that people can separate the person from the behavior/lifestyle when considering these issues.

Just today I had a student use "******" as an insult during an outburst/argument with another student in class.  Now, somewhere (family, media, society....) this student was allowed to make the associate that '******/gay' is equivalent of 'bad/wrong/insulting/degrading' and is an appropriate word to lash out with when you want to hurt someone...

I locked that behavior up quick as a heart attack.

Relative to that little 'lens on life', Melissa's comment is a breath of fresh air/step in a good direction.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 16, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> How many of you actually have spent any time with a gay man or woman? Gone partying at a gender-bender bar? (or were you too nervous you might be tempted to switch teams?) The best ribbings you will ever get are from those living outside the box. What gall to sanction behavior on the behalf of people whose lives are challenged daily because of behavioral sanctions.


You aren't alone, Dave. I am a straight person that has spent a significant amount of time with gay people. Challenging stereotypes and ignorant comments is something I also do every chance I get. I think sometimes it's easier for people to listen to someone that isn't in the group they so greatly disdain. But I also think it's important to try and set a positive, open, listening tone to the discussions because when you start making accusations and getting all huffy and self-righteous the people you're trying to get to listen just turn off.


----------



## KenpoTess (Dec 16, 2004)

* MOD WARNING

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level~!

Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 
Personal Attacks Nor Racisct Comments will Not be Tolerated~!


~Tess
-MT S Moderator-
*


----------



## raedyn (Dec 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Just today I had a student use "******" as an insult during an outburst/argument with another student in class. Now, somewhere (family, media, society....) this student was allowed to make the associate that '******/gay' is equivalent of 'bad/wrong/insulting/degrading' and is an appropriate word to lash out with when you want to hurt someone...


This phenomenon (sp?) has bothered me for a long time. It's like ******/gay is the new 'retard'. Both of which are pretty repugnant to my ears.


----------



## KenpoTess (Dec 16, 2004)

Back to Topic please


----------



## raedyn (Dec 16, 2004)

'kay, for those of you arriving a little later, PeachMonkey's edited out word was a racist slur, and Loki's was a slur against gay people. Both of these are forbidden according to the MT rules.

Y'all are smart enough to figure it out from there. *nods*


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Gee it sounded more like "love the sinner, hate the sin" to me....
> 
> It is at least a step in the right direction that people can separate the person from the behavior/lifestyle when considering these issues.




This assumes the behavior/lifestyle is "bad."  It is hardly non-judgemental and doesn't account for the potential that homosexuality has a biological etiology.

I've always thought the "love the sinner, hate the sin" line was a cop out by many.  Few conservative Christians I know spend any time with Gays and know very little about them...preferring to believe myths about them, such as those I provided above.





Regards,


Steve


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 16, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> This phenomenon (sp?) has bothered me for a long time. It's like ******/gay is the new 'retard'. Both of which are pretty repugnant to my ears.


In an attempt to tie this back to topic:

AMEN Raedyn!  Agreed across the board on that comment.

I have already posted my speculation on the 'when' issue of same sex marriage but:

I agree with the Janulis comment that there are many things that have been blamed on 'gay' that really have no direct connection to it.

I think along with the 'when' the 'why' is a pretty big issue to discuss.

Why is/has 'gay' been such a target of hostility?


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 16, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> This assumes the behavior/lifestyle is "bad." It is hardly non-judgemental and doesn't account for the potential that homosexuality has a biological etiology.
> 
> I've always thought the "love the sinner, hate the sin" line was a cop out by many. Few conservative Christians I know spend any time with Gays and know very little about them...preferring to believe myths about them, such as those I provided above.
> 
> ...


Well, based on a certain set of personal values/personal lifestyle choices, it may be considered 'bad.' That simply means that you don't agree with 'it' and that you don't condone/participate in 'it.' It does not HAVE to be the cop out to lay judgement on the person that does live that lifestyle.

I spend little to no time with gays as well. The few that I have known were people, just as messed up and complex as the rest of us. Their sexual preference did not make them more or less noble or evil than anyone else.

The point is that, based on 'conservative Christian' practices (which can vary from denomination to denomination), it is not a person's place to 'judge/condemn' a fellow human being - that is power belonging to God. It is an individual's job to be the best person he/she can - to include treating all people, regardless of differences, with the recognition that we all have a divinity given to us by God. This is almost Karmic in rationale because your success/failure is percieved as a living testemony of how much YOU are truly an example of 'God's Teaching.' So, though you may hurt a fellow human (gay bashing or what ever) the real damage is what you do to your eternal soul.

Much like the Lucifer lesson, people 'vain' enough to think that they are good enough to lay judgement on others will find themselves edging closer to the "Hell" (distance or removal from God's grace) side of the reward scale than the "Heaven" (fully embraced in God's grace) based on their 'lifestyle.'

Just because a 'conservative Christian' or any person doesn't spend a lot of time around ANY different groups of people means that they will be bigotous or that they have no desire to treat that, or any, group as if they were just as 'divine' as they were.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 16, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> This assumes the behavior/lifestyle is "bad." It is hardly non-judgemental


You're right. It is judgemental. While it may be 'a step in the right direction' as loki puts it, I don't find it to be a terribly enlightened view. There are different degrees of homophobia just like (as pointed out by PeachMonkey) there are different degrees of racist. It's kinda like saying 'blacks are fine as long as my daughter doesn't marry one'. Better than someone leading a lynching but...



> and doesn't account for the potential that homosexuality has a biological etiology.


 Research seems to indicate there may be some biological component to the causation a homosexuality. But personally I don't have a lot of interest in pursuing that. What's the purpose? Ostensibly, if we can prove there's a biological cause then "it's not their fault" and we should all accept them, right? Horse-hooey. Then there will be people calling it a genetic defect and trying to control for it, find tests for it in utero etc etc. Maybe those things wouldn't happen, but I'd be very surprised. I don't see what good for gay people can be accomplished by pursuing this avenue. And what if there turns out to be no biological reasons? Then it's okay to persecute this group? Hardly. But people would use it as justification. 

It would be more productive for us to start learning to accept & embrace the diversity the exists among humans, providing a richer experience for us all.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 16, 2004)

Shoot. My first reply got erased.

Anyways.

In the line of what raedyn was saying, I think homosexuality is the "new" slur.  (Although it's not new.)  Previously, racist slurs were used (and still are, in some areas).  When I was in elementary school, I remember mentally-disabled slurs used a lot (which bothered me a great deal, even then).  Now it seems acceptible in some areas to use "gay" as the OK thing to say to people.  And, if called on it, the person who was yelling, "Queer!" at someone they were picking a fight with, could say, "Well, Uh, it's, it's in the Bible!  The Bible says it's wrong!  That person is a bad person!  homosexuality is GAY! I mean, WRONG!"

I think the rise of the ultra-conservative "Religious right" in this country has only bolstered the feelings that these attitudes are OK, that it's OK to go after people like this, or use sexual orientation as a general slur for someone you're angry with.  I think it ties into feelings of machismo too - a man may call another man "***" and thereby reduce the other person's feelings of masculinity - or know that he's starting a fight.

I'm very, very tired of it, myself.  I think it makes the person saying it look absolutely ig'nant.

As to homosexuality being "wrong".... Well, it depends on your point of view as to how seriously I will believe that *you* think it is wrong.  If you say that homosexuals are child molesters, I would basically laugh in your face.  (And HHJH already posted some good information on that topic.)  If you say that it is your religious belief, but you won't go after gays - then I can respect your views.

But the vehemence with which some people want to obliterate gay people from society truly frightens me.  As if the only way society works is by being homogenous - which is a crock of bull.  

As I said before, I think at least some of the feelings about homosexuality are tied into "being masculine" or "being feminine".  People usually don't go after lesbians, but can get ragingly angry about gay men.  Because they are somehow "more effeminate?"  Maybe.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Well, based on a certain set of personal values/personal lifestyle choices, it may be considered 'bad.' ... It does not HAVE to be the cop out to lay judgement on the person that does live that lifestyle.


Also correct. It doesn't HAVE to be used that way. It often is, but there are notable exceptions. There are people that feel evangalizing and judging is the right way. And there are people that hold themselves to the high standards of their faith and feel that others must make their own choices and that is between the individual and their god.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> That simply means that you don't agree with 'it' and that you don't condone/participate in 'it.'


Yes. So if you don't want to be in a same sex marriage, don't marry someone of your gender. Stay out of my marriage, thankyouverymuch.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 16, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Would you mind pointing me to that reference as well? Sorry, I hadn't heard that and I'd like to remember it.
> 
> 7sm



Proverbs. As in, all of it. Wisdom, personified as a female deity, speaks frequently throughout the work.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 16, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Also correct. It doesn't HAVE to be used that way. It often is, but there are notable exceptions. There are people that feel evangalizing and judging is the right way. And there are people that hold themselves to the high standards of their faith and feel that others must make their own choices and that is between the individual and their god.
> 
> Yes. So if you don't want to be in a same sex marriage, don't marry someone of your gender. Stay out of my marriage, thankyouverymuch.


 
There you go.  And that is exactly the duality that I deal with when it comes to the issue of legalizing same sex marriage.

On one hand, marriage - as defined by faith - is a sacred act that is a living testemony to God's presence in the world and is between a man and woman so that they can be 'fruitful.'  Therefore, personally I don't agree with same sex 'marriage' as something that religion should have to accept.

On the other hand, marriage - as a legal contract recognized in court - should not be denied fully vested citizens of the US because they live a gay/lesbian sexual preference.  I would vote for the legalization of same sex marriages because they are citizens with the right to equal benefits and dignified recognition in court/probate/society.

My personal values are my values as an individual - as theirs are.
I have NO right as a citizen to infringe on a fellow citizens civil rights simply because I don't agree with who they choose to take to bed.  It does not pose a risk to my personal/family or communities safety or ability to live my chosen lifestyle.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 16, 2004)

> On one hand, marriage - as defined by faith - is a sacred act that is a living testemony to God's presence in the world and is between a man and woman so that they can be 'fruitful.' Therefore, personally I don't agree with same sex 'marriage' as something that religion should have to accept.



Anyone else ever notice that this kinda stuff always precludes a Christian ceremony??


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 16, 2004)

*sigh* I held off for as long as I could on this one.

 There has always been the desire for conformity - the perpetuated idea that conformity is normal.  It is still the benchmark for most psychoses, neuroses, physical ailments, performance levels, status ... the list goes on and on.  With conformity, people identify with one another and communities are formed.  Challenges and judgementalism arrive on the shoulders of the non-conformist.  People virtually always converge judgement on the new, the different, the not-understood.  If it is outside of someone's frame of reference, that person must find a way to either justify it or condemn it.  This is what is done with most behaviors outside of heterosexuality.

 If it is proven that sexual preference is a biological issue, then I worry also about homosexuality being perceived as the next "retard" (excellent reference, Raedyn) because it is a physical anomoly and could someday be classified as a psychiatric illness again or a disability - SHEESH!!!

 We are nearing a point, it seems, where big brother is in the bedroom.  I would like to see the list of those who are so vehement about nonacceptance of homosexual "lifestyles" sign up to have webcams in their bedrooms hooked up to their priest's computer for twenty-four hour monitoring.  Perhaps there will be videochip cameras implanted in everyone's mouths, fingers and nether regions.  What are _you_ hiding?  you never know what might be considered to be a "lifestyle" these days - sex with vegetables (gives new meaning to the term "vegetarian") or bedposts or cell phones ... oh the list is endless.

 For the record, my sister is gay, I have spent plenty of time with bisexual and homosexual people and lots of people I assumed were heterosexual but never really knew for sure. 

 I was once asked if I would want my son to be a homosexual.  I replied that I really could care less how he gets off as an adult.  If he is a responsible, caring, productive and happy citizen, I'd consider my job well done.

 Peace.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 16, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Anyone else ever notice that this kinda stuff always precludes a Christian ceremony??


Let me adjust:

Within MY personal faith.....

You do have to acknowledge that the 'popular' understanding/religious view on marriage in the US is going to be based on Judeo/Christian values.

And, actually, NT/Christian Ceremonial practices are not strictly "Christian."  Some Christians (though not many) would argue that Jesus was a bit 'Hippy-ish' because the basic idea on marriage he presented was that there was 'marriage' when a man and a woman choose to be fully committed to each other - no ceremonial requirement mentioned.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Let me adjust:
> 
> Within MY personal faith.....
> 
> You do have to acknowledge that the 'popular' understanding/religious view on marriage in the US is going to be based on Judeo/Christian values.



No. I have to acknolwedge that Separation of Church and State precludes any privileged position in regards to religious ceremonies and legal rights is wrong. Period.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 16, 2004)

Excuse me a moment - are we saying there were no marriages before Christ?  before Juadism?


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 16, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> No. I have to acknolwedge that Separation of Church and State precludes any privileged position in regards to religious ceremonies and legal rights is wrong. Period.


Well, you can ignore the census registration box checking statistics (for those that choose to answer at all) or other polling/data collecting tools if you want....

But, I agree with you that there should be no priviledge simply because someone is 'different' as long as that difference doesn't pose a threat to my personal/family or community safety.

It does seem to be ridiculous that churches/religious groups are less worried about allowing alcoholics, addicts, adulterers, thieves.... than they are about homosexuals.

You don't hear this much hullaballoo around 'that alcoholic having the gaul to take communion.'  But, God forbid (PUN!), a known gay were to do so.  The hissing and whispering that would be heard and seen......

As I said, It isn't so much the 'rightousness' that allows 'religious' people to cause others pain by being judgemental/hostile/bigotous, but the damage they do to themselves in the long run that folks of 'faith' should really be worried about.

There are SOOOOO many cautionary tales about the importance of hospitallity to strangers or 'others' in and out of Christianity that people should really pay attention to more than all the 'this line says that I can hate Blacks, gays, Jews.....who ever I want to hate but need a justified excuse to hate....'

Respect for diversity is not a new trend by any means.  In all those tales, the price of not being hospitible is usually something like the "you could have had this, but you were a jerk when you thought this Angel was just a leper" or actual cursing with ailment/pain or tragedy.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 16, 2004)

> There has always been the desire for conformity - the perpetuated idea that conformity is normal. It is still the benchmark for most psychoses, neuroses, physical ailments, performance levels, status ... the list goes on and on. With conformity, people identify with one another and communities are formed. Challenges and judgementalism arrive on the shoulders of the non-conformist.


 IMO, this quote neatly sums up an answer to the original question. When did homosexuality become "wrong"? As soon as it was not in the realm of the majority position. 

When did it become "right"? When individual humans became enlightened to the fact that individual choices can be made in the name of personal freedom, yet not conflict with the rights of others.

Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things; intolerance, however, sits firmly in opposition to both. In my opinion, intolerance of sexual preference is directly counter to the freedom of expression that all "progressive" societies claim to hold so dear. What frightens me is that the crusade to control the choices of the population is a subtle declaration of war on individual freedoms, and I have yet to see a position of disclusion that does not use a foundation of hypocrisy as a foundation for its argument.


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> It does seem to be ridiculous that churches/religious groups are less worried about allowing alcoholics, addicts, adulterers, thieves.... than they are about homosexuals.
> 
> You don't hear this much hullaballoo around 'that alcoholic having the gaul to take communion.' But, God forbid (PUN!), a known gay were to do so. The hissing and whispering that would be heard and seen......
> 
> ...


I must respectfully disagree with your first comments.  I think it depends upon the church. For instance, as a non-Catholic, I am not allowed to take mass (communion) in a Catholic church.  My argument is and has always been that Jesus ate with known sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes. Why am I less worthy than they, because I don't follow Catholic teachings?

I live in a small town (where every knows everyone else, and their business ).  It's largely Catholic and I know several gay men and women who regularly participate in mass, with no objections from the priests.

My sister is a deputy prosecutor in a large midwestern Big Ten college town.  She knows who the theives, rapists, drug addicts, alcoholics and other convicted felons are.  I think, knowing her as I do, she probably does prefer to welcome gays and lesbians to her church more than some of the others who show up.    The only time she has ever objected to anyone participating in any church activity is when a convicted child molester was volunteering to be part of a children's group.

The verses I think you are referring to are from Matthew 25: 35-46.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 16, 2004)

Same question as always: AS A MATTER OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, why would anybody think it was OK to tell practicing, devout Christians who honestly believed themselves to be leading Christian lives and who attended a Christian church that said the same, that they were in any way wrong, evil or condemned for being gay?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The point is that, based on 'conservative Christian' practices (which can vary from denomination to denomination), it is not a person's place to 'judge/condemn' a fellow human being - that is power belonging to God.



Isn't it rather judgmental to deny a homosexual their chance to express their love in the eyes of god with a vow of marriage?

Isn't it rather judgemental to deny a homosexual who feels a spiritual calling to preach the Word of Jesus by denying their ability to become ordained?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 16, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Isn't it rather judgmental to deny a homosexual their chance to express their love in the eyes of god with a vow of marriage?
> 
> Isn't it rather judgemental to deny a homosexual who feels a spiritual calling to preach the Word of Jesus by denying their ability to become ordained?


Yes... but people (and/or religious institutions/organizations) have reserved that right - to believe what they believe.  

Where I feel it is judgmental - and violating the rights of homosexual or bisexual folks - is when these become civic "beliefs" - i.e. gay couples cannot have a civil union, cannot adopt, cannot... whatever.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that a guy who likes the idea of two women together is necessarily bisexual; I think that is an incorrect assumption. That argument doesn't blur the lines.



I think that it does because if you are willing to bend the opposite sex rules in that circumstance, then you are not as "straight" as you once thought.  



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Its not whether your pro "two girls" or "two guys icky" we are talking about active participation, not watching.



Watching can be participation.  Pornography is popular because of the fantasy involved.  These fantasies are a sort of mental participation, wouldn't you say?  



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Also, I dont think being gay is defined the way you describe it. Finding someone of the same sex attractive is a gross understatement to what being gay is. Just because someone who is gay finds a person of the opposite sex to be "attractive" isn't pushing them into the bisexual "group". I like to look at impressionist paintings, but I dont consider myself an impressionist painter.



In order to have sex with (much less love another person) you've got to first find something attractive in that person.  Whether that is in a physical sense, emotional or spiritual...the ability to notice another person of the same sex "attractiveness" is a step away from the "straight ideal" on the continuum I described.  

I don't think your analogy works in this situation.  Lets replace a few nouns..."I like to look at men, but I don't consider myself homosexual."  I would agree with that statement, but I would have to add that the proclivity is there and that is what I'm talking about.

A continuum.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Every friend I've had that is gay (male or female) has definitely make distinctions between being gay and being bisexual.



I think the distinction is more of a social thing...being "Gay" makes you part of group and you can be proud of that.  Yet it might not describe all of the idiosyncracies of actually being gay.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> You made my point yourself, if the gay person is able to find a person of opposite sex attractive *in the same way* that a straight person can differentiate between people of the same sex, then that means nothing, unless your saying the straight person who can say a person of the same sex is attractive is now gay or bisexual. That person doesnt cease to be straight, so the gay person in our scenario wouldn't cease to be gay or turn bisexual. We are talking about a complete sexual preference, not just finding someone attractive.



I am saying that our labels of "gay" or "straight" are inadequate to describe human sexuality.  I believe that all people are a mix of both "gay" and "straight" and that we are trying to label proportions that are different in everyone.  Now that is tough.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think that is playing down what being gay is, and most people I know that are gay would disagree with you.



I'm not so sure they would.  There only a few people I've ever met that thought themselves to be totally "gay" and I believe that if people were more open we would find the inverse to be true.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Yes... but people (and/or religious institutions/organizations) have reserved that right - to believe what they believe.
> 
> Where I feel it is judgmental - and violating the rights of homosexual or bisexual folks - is when these become civic "beliefs" - i.e. gay couples cannot have a civil union, cannot adopt, cannot... whatever.



Being and avowed Christian, how do you balance these principles?  Isn't it like a stunted shrub in your beautiful forest?  :asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 16, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Being and avowed Christian, how do you balance these principles? Isn't it like a stunted shrub in your beautiful forest? :asian:


lol - what a simile!    That was fabulous.

I do not personally believe that homosexuality is wrong.  My church does not encourage same-sex sexual relationships, however.  In that point, we are not simpatico.  For the majority of issues, we are.

Coming from a heavily traditional branch of Christianity, I can try to understand why these feelings are there in the church.  Some, because founding fathers of the church, who gave us some good things, also had serious problems with homosexuality.  Some also ranted against Jews.  That doesn't mean I'm anti-Semetic, and it doesn't mean I think being biased against gay folks is right, either.  We always have the option to disagree (without name-calling and foaming at the mouth!).

I can look at what I know about gay people, about my friends who are gay or bisexual, and evaluate "them".  Some are monogamous - some are promiscuous.  Kind of like my hetero friends, and people I know.  Some are really kind-hearted and good people, some are jackasses.  Also, like the heteros I know.  

Does that mean I think I know what God wants?  No.  No, I don't.  I'm trying to figure it out as best I can - both with the Church, and with my own experiences of the world, and how my parents raised me.  So far, to me, that means accepting other people, as long as they are not hurting others, and also tolerate others.  I tend to try to be less judgemental - since, as someone posted earlier, it is foolhardy, I think, to judge others.  We do it, sure, but we can try not to quite so vehemently or rashly.

Honestly, I think gay folks are being honest - being honest with who they are, who they want to have sexual/romantic relationships with.  To me, that does not make sense as an abomination.  It certainly challenges the traditional view of what "the family" should look like.  It certainly challenges gender roles (and people in different faiths are often given specific gender role messages, whether negative or positive).  It certainly doesn't make it "easier" for heteros out there, necessarily.  

But it's not someone else's job to make my, or yours, or their, perceptions of the world easier.  

I think people who are anti-gay might have a little more sympathy if they ever really got to know a gay person, befriended them, and stayed up late with them as they poured their heart out over a heartbreak.  When people think of sexual orientation, they may think of SEXSEXSEX, and promiscuity.  But each person is much more than that, and, like most (but scarcely all) heterosexuals, most of the gay/bi people I know are looking for a relationship where they can love and be loved in return.

But that's just my limited experience.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 16, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Proverbs. As in, all of it. Wisdom, personified as a female deity, speaks frequently throughout the work.


 Ah, well I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Having spent many years of my childhood and junior high days translating many books (proverbs being one of them) from Hebrew to english and back again (many times) it never refers to "wisdom" as a deity. It does use "female" terms but so do sailors referring to their boats.





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that it does because if you are willing to bend the opposite sex rules in that circumstance, then you are not as "straight" as you once thought.


 Bend what opposite sex rules? Are there rules about the opposite sex that are written down somewhere? Its this thinking that gives way to the homophobic mindset that is prevalent today.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Watching can be participation. Pornography is popular because of the fantasy involved. These fantasies are a sort of mental participation, wouldn't you say?


 True, but then watching porn is cheating on your wife or significant other and is a whole other thread in itself. What I said though, was that liking the idea, or being "turned on" by two women doesn't make you gay or bisexual in any manner. Again, this thinking gives way to stereotypes and generalities. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In order to have sex with (much less love another person) you've got to first find something attractive in that person. Whether that is in a physical sense, emotional or spiritual...the ability to notice another person of the same sex "attractiveness" is a step away from the "straight ideal" on the continuum I described.


 Again, here we go with that mindset again. So you can rate people as a 76% gay or 13% bisexual? Thats ridiculous, finding someone of the same sex as attractive or "good looking" brings you no closer to being gay or bisexual than eating a hamburger makes you a hunter. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think the distinction is more of a social thing...being "Gay" makes you part of group and you can be proud of that. Yet it might not describe all of the idiosyncracies of actually being gay.


 You can think that all day, but are you gay or bisexual? Because most all of my friends who are gay agree with me, in fact, they are who really got me to thinking this way. Its not about being part of a group, thats another distortion to what being gay is. In fact, it would offend me to hear you generalize being gay that way if I were gay...wait, it offends me now. Thats just not open-minded enough for me. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I am saying that our labels of "gay" or "straight" are inadequate to describe human sexuality. I believe that all people are a mix of both "gay" and "straight" and that we are trying to label proportions that are different in everyone. Now that is tough.


 Ok, call it what you like, but its not about "being part of a group" or thinking Jenna Jameson and Silvia Saint together is hot. Youre only scratching the surface of what being gay or bisexual is about. I see your point about being gay and straight, but then you have to define what gay or straight is. 

  7sm


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 16, 2004)

Biological imperative = "The drive to reproduce, and pass on ones genes to future generations."

Ummmm. Does anybody see the problem here about asserting that same-gender preference is genetically determined? Like nectar birds with short beaks living on islands with long flowers, it would only be a matter of time until this environmentally defunct adaptation weaned itself right out of the gene pool.

D.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 16, 2004)

Warning: I am opening myself up for a crotch kick with this post...

Yet, I see a trend here that I find disturbing.

I am a gay rights advocate, and I see a major problem with my 'peers' here.

Why is it that for gay rights advocates, the mentality is that you MUST personally agree with homosexual lifestyles on a moral level in order to support gay rights?

Who's insisting on conformity now?

It doesn't make sense. You can support for the rights of individuals to persue their own lifestyles and relationships (as long as they don't infringe on others safety or rights) without having to morally agree with those lifestyles and relationships. That's what tolerance is about.

What I am finding is that many gay rights advocates don't want tolerance...they want moral conformity, but of a different brand and breed then christian-rightism. And it is wanting this conformity and argueing from such a position that propigates the moral division of America. This behavior sends those with judeo-christian values running to their ministers and conservative politicians where they can be played like puppets; end 
results - electing people who truely do not make decisions that is best for the american people.

If anyone wants to know why the democrates have been losing elections lately, then they should read this thread. If you want to see "the moral majority" act in a tolerant way and not fight against gay marriage, then be tolerant of their beliefs and rights to personally disagree with gay lifestyles first. If you don't want the "moral majority" to discredit your beliefs, then don't discredit their rights to theirs. And, if you don't want to be stereotyped with words like "liberals", then don't behave in ways that fit those negative stereotypes.

I am a gay rights advocate, and I proudly voted in favor of gay marriage despite the overwhleming opposition by my church, some of my family, and my community...

Yet, I think that tolerance should be bi-sexual, in that it should go both ways...  

Paul


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 16, 2004)

Paul, your post is a very interesting one.  I must ask - what exactly does the word "lifestyle" mean when we are talking about sexual preference?

 To me, a "lifestyle" is how one lives one's life - either they appreciate wine, ale or liquor, they either procure these items and enjoy them in the home or they bar hop or seek wine tasting events regularly or perhaps take the limo to the wineries.  Frequenting backroom bars is a lifestyle that is practiced amongst all sexual persuasions.  So are furtive, casual sexual liaisons in public places.  Hugh Hefner lives a lifestyle which includes extravagance and partying and open sexuality, but he is not gay and he pursues his sexuality in a particular way which is conducive to his lifestyle.

 So we talk about approving of or not approving of "The Gay Lifestyle."  What the hell is that supposed to mean, really??  Is there a handbook?  Did I miss an e-mail?

 We use this word as a euphemism for something we perceive homosexuals do - whatever that means in our uninformed minds.  And what exactly does it mean to "agree with the gay lifestyle?"  Does this mean I think it rocks or that I agree with the acts some folks associate with homosexual behavior?  And still - what does that even mean??  Am I to decide to agree with male-to-male sodomy or female-to-female ***********?  Agree??? with a sex act????  Does anyone else see the conflict of terms here?  If I agree with a sex act, I'd better be asked to have it, not give permission for someone else to do so!:ultracool

 To me, a lifestyle is indicative of how a person spends their money, manages their resources, recreates, strategizes their life, pays their bills, and seeks avenues for pleasure - not the pleasure itself.

 So, I support gay rights.  I only care about my sister's lifestyle because I care about her and she's family.

 Does any of this make sense to anybody else??


----------



## Tgace (Dec 16, 2004)

If somebody dosent "like" something they arent going to be made to "like" it no matter what you argue, I too think theres a difference between "rights" and "acceptance". Like Paul, Id just be satisfied with everybody having equal rights just because we are Americans and we are all free to do what we want as long as it dosent infringe on somebody elses rights. The whole "you must accept" argument isnt going to reach very far downrange...


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 17, 2004)

Tgace is getting what I am saying here.

I wouldn't get too caught up with the words "gay lifestyle" in my post; I could of used any term from "homosexuals", to "homosexual behavior", to "gay relationships", to whatever. It really doesn't matter; any term I use will piss you off if you disagree with me, and any term could backfire into a semantics arguement.

"lifestyle" in this case basically means any consistant behavior that impacts ones life. Relationships in general impact ones life; so when discussing social relationships you could use the term "social lifestyle." When discussing martial arts and behavior that is broadly consistant with martial artists, you could say "martial arts lifestyle." And so on. So for hetorsexual behavior you could use the term "hetrosexual lifestyle," and for homosexual behavior you could use the term "gay lifestyle." It's just simple semantics. Yet, no matter what I say, one who disagrees can turn it into a semantics arguement.

The problem usually isn't with the semantics in these arguements; the problem is when illogical assumptions are made from certian labels. If I assumed, for instance, that "gay lifestyle" meant promiscuity, orgies, child rape, and drugs at techno clubs, then I would be making illogical assumptions from a label. I did nothing of the sort in my previous post.

What I am saying is that if homosexuality is against someones moral or religious beliefs, then it is their right to disagree with "gay lifestyles" or "same gender relationships." They can "love the sinner but hate the sin" as the saying goes, and no, it is NOT a cop out to do so. How many of you have had a child or family member or friend who has done something that you despised, yet, you love them anyways? Was it a cop out for you to dislike the behavior but still love the person? I think not.

People have the rights to disagree with behaviors and "lifestyles," (so long as those disagreements don't hinder the freedom of others) and that is what makes us American. People also have the rights to persue whatever kind of "lifestyle" they want (so long as that lifestyle doesn't hinder the freedom of others) , and that is also what makes us American.

Many gay rights advocates are wrongly disrespectful to the fact that it is an individuals right to morally/religiously disagree with "homosexual lifestyles;" this gave the christian-rightwinged-nutcases plenty of ammo, and that is a major reason why WE (I say WE because I am a gay rights advocate and I voted AGAINST the gay marriage Ban like many of you) have been losing the battle on the gay rights issue.

Think about it....

Paul


----------



## modarnis (Dec 17, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> People have the rights to disagree with behaviors and "lifestyles," (so long as those disagreements don't hinder the freedom of others) and that is what makes us American. People also have the rights to persue whatever kind of "lifestyle" they want (so long as that lifestyle doesn't hinder the freedom of others) , and that is also what makes us American.
> 
> Many gay rights advocates are wrongly disrespectful to the fact that it is an individuals right to morally/religiously disagree with "homosexual lifestyles;" this gave the christian-rightwinged-nutcases plenty of ammo, and that is a major reason why WE (I say WE because I am a gay rights advocate and I voted AGAINST the gay marriage Ban like many of you) have been losing the battle on the gay rights issue.
> 
> ...



Paul and TGace both get it.  The drive from the left and some self labeled centrists toward cultural homogeneity is a huge problem.  If one does not buy in to the whole of the cause, they are coveniently labeled (warmonger, homophobe, racist, right wing christian or whatever) and dismissed.  For a frightening look at this assault on free speexh that exists in our popular and political culture read The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds.  Before any of the left of center types jump on me for this, the author Tammy Bruce was the former president of the LA chapter of the National Organization for Women and a former NOW national board member.

Anyone who values the bill of rights, regardless of their political views should be sickened by this book


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

First off, I apologize if I've offended you.  We may have to agree to disagree on this since there is absolutely no way to determine who is correct.  I am okay with that.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Bend what opposite sex rules? Are there rules about the opposite sex that are written down somewhere? Its this thinking that gives way to the homophobic mindset that is prevalent today.



For clarification, "opposite sex rule" describes what I was trying to get at better then the plural typo.  You and I are on the same page on this.  There are no _rules_.  I believe that it is fallacious to think that a man can only love a woman and vice versa.  Perhaps a better way to think about my position is to veiw it in terms of different gradations of _love_ rather then sex.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> True, but then watching porn is cheating on your wife or significant other and is a whole other thread in itself. What I said though, was that liking the idea, or being "turned on" by two women doesn't make you gay or bisexual in any manner. _Again, this thinking gives way to stereotypes and generalities_.



I don't think so.  In fact, I think this type of thinking does away with stereotypes and generalities by giving human sexuality and love an individualized character.  For instance, I know some men who do not like watching to women have sex and I know some that do.  On the Homo/Hetero spectrum this clearly is a step toward Homo _and there is nothing wrong with that_.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Again, here we go with that mindset again. So you can rate people as a 76% gay or 13% bisexual? Thats ridiculous, finding someone of the same sex as attractive or "good looking" brings you no closer to being gay or bisexual than eating a hamburger makes you a hunter.



Yes, it does, because when one is appraising another man's attractiveness one is doing so based on what YOU think is attractive in men (or women).  You really cannot get inside another person's head or understand societies norms of attractiveness without personally feeling them.  Does this make a person Gay?  Maybe, maybe not.  Again we come up against the limitations of our language to describe human sexuality.  The bottom line is that thinking like this brings out the homosexual thoughts that everyone has.  It shows that they are normal.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> You can think that all day, but are you gay or bisexual? Because most all of my friends who are gay agree with me, in fact, they are who really got me to thinking this way. Its not about being part of a group, thats another distortion to what being gay is. In fact, it would offend me to hear you generalize being gay that way if I were gay...wait, it offends me now. Thats just not open-minded enough for me.



You can't have tight labels to describe human sexuality.  It is just to individual in nature.  For instance, my feelings toward the opposite sex and toward the same sex are a mix that just can't be easily pegged.  From people I've talked to, this is the case across the board.  Letting people be who they want without trying to fit there square peg into the round hole of a label is perhaps the MOST open minded you could be about this.

Also being "gay" can make you part of a group if you want to.  GLBT is an organization where GAY is a political statement.  There is nothing offensive about this and it doesn't make what a person is any less.  In fact, acknowledging that you are part of a group allows a person to fellowship with other who are "like" them.  It also gives an individual political power in our society and there is nothing offensive about that.

Yet, within that group you will have people who like one thing and do not like another.  Some who will like women, but are still attracted to other men and then there will be some who only like the same sex and literally have no clue about the other.  This is clearly a spectrum.  There is no better way to describe this difference.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Ok, call it what you like, but its not about "being part of a group" or thinking Jenna Jameson and Silvia Saint together is hot. Youre only scratching the surface of what being gay or bisexual is about. I see your point about being gay and straight, but then you have to define what gay or straight is.



I don't have to define it.  I'm saying that you may be who you are.  Our language does not describe reality and I think that understanding the "homo" or "hetero" in us all really gets to the heart of who we are as individuals.  We are beautiful beings who love a variety of different things.  Why bind that beauty with a label?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Yet, I think that tolerance should be bi-sexual, in that it should go both ways...



Paul, I don't think that is possible.  We have one set of beliefs that is in direct conflict with another.  This situation is very reminiscent of the civil rights movement.  Bigotry somehow got wrapped up in religion and it took a whole heck of a social movement to unravel that mess.  Rosa Parks want to sit in the front of the bus.  How can she combine her right to do so with the belief that she should sit in the back?  I think that the belief on the Left is that homosexuals should be able to sit anywhere on the bus and that forcing them to the back is wrong?  If that message frightens some people, so be it.  The struggles for equality never go smoothly and fear always plays a part.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If somebody dosent "like" something they arent going to be made to "like" it no matter what you argue, I too think theres a difference between "rights" and "acceptance". Like Paul, Id just be satisfied with everybody having equal rights just because we are Americans and we are all free to do what we want as long as it dosent infringe on somebody elses rights. The whole "you must accept" argument isnt going to reach very far downrange...



Yet your ideals is that people _must accept _ "equality" among all people as citizens.  This still forces a belief on someone.  Many people do not believe that homosexuals deserve equality as citizens of the US and they actively oppose this.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Isn't it rather judgmental to deny a homosexual their chance to express their love in the eyes of god with a vow of marriage?
> 
> Isn't it rather judgemental to deny a homosexual who feels a spiritual calling to preach the Word of Jesus by denying their ability to become ordained?


In religion, at least the Christian stuff that I have been exposed to there are two distinct parts:

1.  Personal relationship with God

2.  The "Body" or Community to include the rules/regulations and such that define that community.  Those 'rules' are based on a certain interpretation of NT/OT text.

That said, it isn't necessarily 'judgemental' in an 'evil' way that Christians that see Homosexuallity as outside of those rules to say that the "Body" has no right to judge you or deny you access to the community because any 'sins' you carry (whether being gay, alcoholic, adultery...) is something that you have to reconcile with your maker at a personal level - the community is there to support you (in theory).  

Within that community, if there are certain 'sins' (mortal and venal come to mind for Catholics) that can disqualify you for authority/power positions within the community it is no different than saying that if you are a convicted spousal abuser, you are not going to be allowed to legally own a gun.

It IS judgemental IMO to assume that tolerance should mean that no standards are allowed to exist at all.  I can tolerate my son's tendency to lip off (meaning that I understand the psychological/developmental/situational conditions that surround the lipping off) but that does not mean that I have to throw away any standards of appropriate conduct of a 12 year old when talking to an adult.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> What I am saying is that if homosexuality is against someones moral or religious beliefs, then it is their right to disagree with "gay lifestyles" or "same gender relationships." They can "love the sinner but hate the sin" as the saying goes, and no, it is NOT a cop out to do so. How many of you have had a child or family member or friend who has done something that you despised, yet, you love them anyways? Was it a cop out for you to dislike the behavior but still love the person? I think not.



I don't think that you can separate the sin and the sinner in this case.  The "sinner" is expressing themselves as an individual by choosing someone they love.  If someone told me that it was wrong to love my wife, I'd throw my hands up in the air and tell them I have no choice BUT to love her.  That love is a part of me and it is no different among homosexuals.  Therefore, "love the sinner, hate the sin" still hates both.  We love who we love because of who we are.  These are inseparable.

And why the heck would loving someone be a sin anyways...


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 17, 2004)

Thats a great statement, and gives everyone warm fuzzies and everything, but simply not so. Its not possible to refuse to use labels. Labels aren't what make people biased, or bigoted. Defining what "gay" or straight" is in the context of a discussion like this is pretty important, if you want to get anywhere with the discussion. 

 Having to say that there is a "sliding scale" if you will, to determine who is "gay" or "straight", in order to accept someone who is gay is in my own opinion, still closed minded a bit. If you have to take the "label" on yourself by saying, "well I'm 27% gay", in order to accept someone who labels themselves gay, is still not getting it, in my opinion. Like Paul said, there needs to be acceptance even across from your own beliefs. Someone who is not gay, who believes being gay is wrong, should still be able to accept a gay person. Thats acceptance, not blurring the lines enough to include yourself so you can then accept them. If your a "christian" and believe being gay is wrong and anabomination against God, you should still be able to accept a gay person, because isn't speeding also wrong? I guess those people never speed either?

 What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't have to include yourself in a group to accept them. I'm not gay, I'm pretty far from gay, but I completely 100% accept all my gay friends (male or female). I also am openminded enough to understand that there are differing reason to be gay or bisexual and not everyone's are the same. I'm also comfortable saying that finding someone of the same sex as "attractive" is not "stepping towards being homosexual". I dont have to step towards being gay to completely accept someone who is gay, its this kind of thinking that fools people into thinking they are openminded when they are still not allowing themselves to really open up if you will.

 7sm


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yet your ideals is that people _must accept _"equality" among all people as citizens. This still forces a belief on someone. Many people do not believe that homosexuals deserve equality as citizens of the US and they actively oppose this.


"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Nation for which it stands...."

If you are going to be a fully vested citizen of this country (which the pledge demonstrates a gesture of intent....), then no one 'forces' you to accept equality - you accept it as a tenet of being an American citizen.  If you don't agree with "equality" then you can try to buck the system (say attack gays or shoot an abortion doctor) and accept the consequences.  You could also leave the country.

People CHOOSE to accept the rules of being an American citizen by choosing to stay in the country and choosing to maintain their citizenship and not becoming a Canadian/Mexican/German....citizen instead.

There are people who are in opposition to gays civil liberties being fully recognized...and they have the right to feel that way!  They DON'T have the right to attack people they don't like, exclude them from jobs/fire them simply for being gay or something else....as long as they object within the 'rules' they aren't 'wrong' simply because they feel that way.  They disagree with you, me and others who don't see it the same way...that is all.

The system isn't set up to have someone come to you and say "Hey, are you being treated poorly?  Gee, let me take care of you."

THe system is set up so that the individual has opportunity and processes to take action to stand up for him/herself and fight for his/her rights to equality when they feel that unfair treatment is present.

Sort of like the sitting in the dark complaining vs. lighting the candle with the match in your pocket...even if that means teaming up/coordinating with others to get that match (which means that you still have to quite complaining and DO something about it) No one likes a whiner, but people do respond to alternatives - even it takes some 'influence' through the constitutional/legal process at times....


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't think that you can separate the sin and the sinner in this case. The "sinner" is expressing themselves as an individual by choosing someone they love. If someone told me that it was wrong to love my wife, I'd throw my hands up in the air and tell them I have no choice BUT to love her. That love is a part of me and it is no different among homosexuals. Therefore, "love the sinner, hate the sin" still hates both. We love who we love because of who we are. These are inseparable.
> 
> And why the heck would loving someone be a sin anyways...


Homosexuallity isn't automatically 'love' but IS a preference for sex with same gender people.  Romanticising it doesn't help clarify the issue.

I am a Heterosexual and can honestly say that fact did not automatically mean that I 'loved' every girl/woman I tried to get together with in life.

Quite honestly, with all the different denominations/variations within those denominations and such, even in Christianity there are places that are more accepting and allow Gays to be fully vested, even evangelical/priestly figures in their practice - instead of complaining about how these folks aren't getting fair treatment, just find the group that will - or start one.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 17, 2004)

First, my semantical point about the word "lifestyle" was not directed at Paul and we agree more than you apparently know, Tulisan.  My point was really about euphemisms when we discuss these topics.  The term "lifestyle" is used, in my opinion, by some as a catch-all which includes many things, the consideration of each of which should be separate and thank you for doing this anyway.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't have to include yourself in a group to accept them. I'm not gay, I'm pretty far from gay, but I completely 100% accept all my gay friends (male or female). I also am openminded enough to understand that there are differing reason to be gay or bisexual and not everyone's are the same. I'm also comfortable saying that finding someone of the same sex as "attractive" is not "stepping towards being homosexual". I dont have to step towards being gay to completely accept someone who is gay, its this kind of thinking that fools people into thinking they are openminded when they are still not allowing themselves to really open up if you will.
> 
> 7sm


 I would have to agree with this, of course, though I never have felt the need to identify or participate in an activity I think the rights for which should be protected.  For example, I despise and am intolerant of racism, but I accept that people with these opinions have a right to live and prosper in America and they can marry and have children and raise them as bigoted as they want to.  I may not agree with it, I won't participate in nor tolerate it and I refuse to condone it but I accept their place here in America.

 It is clear that as Americans we have a mandate to rise above our personal and individual beliefs, our religious beliefs, our comfort zones to accept that people unlike us - outside of our frame of reference, live here and have a right to do so.  It is my personal opinion that we are treated equally and refrain from harming one another in the process as much as possible.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> It is clear that as Americans we have a mandate to rise above our personal and individual beliefs, our religious beliefs, our comfort zones to accept that people unlike us - outside of our frame of reference, live here and have a right to do so. It is my personal opinion that we are treated equally and refrain from harming one another in the process as much as possible.


That is the 'thing' that is the struggle for Democratic citizens.  We have the right and freedom to be individuals but must balance that with how we treat other 'different' individuals - even when we don't agree/condone/approve of their practices or 'lifestyle.'

People, as citizens, seem to loose sight of a common goal or mission and therefore are not working toward that, letting the 'differences' become assets because someone else might come at a problem in a way that you don't and therefore solve it better, but see citizenship as something that gives them permission to complain and vent cart blanc.

I see it in the students at school and from talking to veteran teachers and reflecting on the 'old Corps' vs the new.

Though not completely so, there was more cooperative and 'mission' focused work and people did their part.  That has changed over time from a group to a group of individuals that are willing to let the mission/task go uncompleted because of differences and what they individually aren't 'getting' to their satistfaction.  I am sick of hearing the phrase "I'm not comfortable with that." from students as an excuse not to participate instead of a starting point for ways to modify/adjust the activity or even find a different perspective/reassurance so that they will at least try.  I am NOT talking about something that is life threatening or abusive here, just regular things like answering a question in class, reading out loud, moving from one seat to another to avoid distractions in class.....you know basics.

I have even had 7th graders say "Can't you just tell us the answer?" to which I reply "No, that isn't learning."

People are expecting that if they just sit there and stare long enough, someone else will do the thinking, acting, deciding for them...

THAT scares me more than anything else right now.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't have to define it. I'm saying that you may be who you are. Our language does not describe reality and I think that understanding the "homo" or "hetero" in us all really gets to the heart of who we are as individuals. We are beautiful beings who love a variety of different things. Why bind that beauty with a label?


This POV is contradictory to statements about how scientific discipline and systematic understanding was what was 'real' in the past (Wisc School/Creation thread for example) on the surface.  There you said that Science is real and things as subjective as beauty and 'heart' (another term for 'spirit' in some contexts) are not 'real' because they can not be defined or verified with evidence.

Can you clarify this surface contradiction for me please?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 17, 2004)

I have to interject here...

I keep seeing "lifestyle", "Choice", etc.

I've been thinking on that a bit....ran down the list of everyone I ever lusted after, dated, or even asked out, or just plain fantasized about.

It was an, interesting, trip.  

One point that was constant though.  I never once went "I think I'll lust for you".  I just did.  There was no choice involved that I could see.  It just happened.  If I were to choose the object of my desire, it would be a long haired asian or redhead with large breasts....so why am I with a brunette with average boobs and a short do?  I just am.  I didn't decide 1 day "thats the one".  It just was.  I didn't pick her outta a line up, going down a checklist.  I'm drawn to what I'm drawn to.  Now, if those LOTR elves were redheads rather than blonds....well.....I might have faced some challenges. :rofl:

Seriously, I don't believe it is a "choice".  It just is.  People say "yes, but we've deprogrammed gays".  In the real world, we call that brainwashing.  I can make anyone think anything if I just repeat it enough and reinforce it enough.  In the arts, we call it 'muscle memory' or 'ingrane' etc.  Well, you are a computer, and can be programmed and reprogrammed.

If we're in a dark room, cuddling, caressing and otherwise pleasuring, we've been trained that if the lights come on, and the person you're with is the same gender as you, to react with horror.  But, now that the lights are on....does that change how it felt?

Some other questions:
What is homosexuality?
Is it sexual attraction, and if so, what is sexual attraction?

Many guys who insist they are 'straight', have posters of young buff men, all oiled up, muscles buldging, while wearing little bity posing pouches on their walls...and subscriptions to magazines that feature them.  Where does appreciating a healthy body end, and 'gayness' begin?  Its incredibly grey.


Lifestyle...thats another one.  My lifestyle is currently sitting around in an apartment with 3 cats, online, watching Iron Chef when I can.  If I were to choose my lifestyle, you can bet your bippy it would be alot closer to Hefs, than what I currently have. 


American is spirling backwards into a ultra conservative mindset that is just scary.  I can go to Toronto, a mere 90 minutes away, and see same-gender couples walking, talking and enjoying life in the open, freely.  In fact, Canada is now either about to pass or has passed laws making same-gender mariage legal throughout the nation.  So again, when is it wrong?  In Canada, it's right...and in the US it's wrong.  




As a sidebar: 


> According to the words of Jesus preserved in the Gospels he didnt speak about homosexuality at all -- though he did devote serious time and effort to denouncing the rich along with self-righteous religious hypocrites.
> - E.T.B.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> 1.  I have to interject here...I keep seeing "lifestyle", "Choice", etc.
> 
> 3.  Seriously, I don't believe it is a "choice". It just is. People say "yes, but we've deprogrammed gays". In the real world, we call that brainwashing. I can make anyone think anything if I just repeat it enough and reinforce it enough. In the arts, we call it 'muscle memory' or 'ingrane' etc. Well, you are a computer, and can be programmed and reprogrammed.
> :


1.  What a wonderful word choice to prove your point about choice .

2.  And, if the supporting data about sexual preference being genetic/biological can be compared to the studies that also link antisocial behavior to genetics...there is no proof that any 'reprogramming' of a genetic tendency is real or successful.

UNLIKE antisocial behavior, though, sexual preference is not a threat to society, my family or me individually therefore it should not be a basis to bar people from legally recognized marriages and all the benefits that come with that.

NOTE:  I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ANTISOCIAL!  I am simply saying that, IF the genetic theory holds true, you can say that 'reprogramming' of a genetic tendency is not successful based on studies of attempts to rehabilitate antisocial criminals (rapists, serial killers....) so any claims of groups that they have 'reprogrammed/brainwashed (better word in this case)' gays are thin at best.

Chances are that all the 'reprogramming' accomplished is to induce traumatic/self hating shame in the individual which forced them farther into the closet....


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Excuse me a moment - are we saying there were no marriages before Christ? before Juadism?


Nope


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats a great statement, and gives everyone warm fuzzies and everything, but simply not so. Its not possible to refuse to use labels. Labels aren't what make people biased, or bigoted. Defining what "gay" or straight" is in the context of a discussion like this is pretty important, if you want to get anywhere with the discussion.



It is possible to use other language to describe sexuality.  It is possible to be specific about what you like as an individual.  Labels help people generalize sexuality.  They allow people to lump behavior together and suddenly everyone under that label MUST do the same things.  Truly defining who is "gay" and who is "straight" is impossible.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Having to say that there is a "sliding scale" if you will, to determine who is "gay" or "straight", in order to accept someone who is gay is in my own opinion, still closed minded a bit. If you have to take the "label" on yourself by saying, "well I'm 27% gay", in order to accept someone who labels themselves gay, is still not getting it, in my opinion.



You don't have to label yourself at all.  All you have to do is make your preferences known.  You express your sexuality in an individual way that need not include numbers.  For instance one could say, "I find both men and women attractive.  I've never slept with a man and I'm not interested right now.  Yet, I have no problem with people of the same sex loving each other or sleeping with each other."  No label fits this statement.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Like Paul said, there needs to be acceptance even across from your own beliefs. Someone who is not gay, who believes being gay is wrong, should still be able to accept a gay person. Thats acceptance, not blurring the lines enough to include yourself so you can then accept them. If your a "christian" and believe being gay is wrong and anabomination against God, you should still be able to accept a gay person, because isn't speeding also wrong? I guess those people never speed either?



Am I blurring the lines or did Nature do that for us?  Perhaps the "answers" regarding sexuality are not found in Christianity.  For instance, I love my wife.  That love is a part of me and I can never make that go away.  If someone said that it was wrong, all I could do is throw my hands in the air and tell them that I couldn't help it.  For someone to accept me, they need to accept all of me or its just a cop out.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't have to include yourself in a group to accept them. I'm not gay, I'm pretty far from gay, but I completely 100% accept all my gay friends (male or female). I also am openminded enough to understand that there are differing reason to be gay or bisexual and not everyone's are the same. I'm also comfortable saying that finding someone of the same sex as "attractive" is not "stepping towards being homosexual". I dont have to step towards being gay to completely accept someone who is gay, its this kind of thinking that fools people into thinking they are openminded when they are still not allowing themselves to really open up if you will.



You may not have the choice.  You are what you are and you cannot escape that.  Finding someone attractive of the same sex doesn't make you "gay" but it demonstrates something that you and a "gay" person have in common.  IT IS a step in their direction if you will.  Hell, you could even check guys out together...

In the end, you are not making a step toward anything, you are just making your sexual preferences known...and that is the ideal expression of who you are.  You might be able to walk down the street and point out hot guys with your "gay" buddy and this doesn't mean that you want to take it further.  It means that you have acheive a comradery with that person by sharing in the commonalities of your preferences.  There is nothing wrong with this...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Nation for which it stands...."
> 
> If you are going to be a fully vested citizen of this country (which the pledge demonstrates a gesture of intent....), then no one 'forces' you to accept equality - you accept it as a tenet of being an American citizen.  If you don't agree with "equality" then you can try to buck the system (say attack gays or shoot an abortion doctor) and accept the consequences.  You could also leave the country.



Or you could attempt through political might to change the rules upon which this country was founded in order to actively condemn and discriminate...


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Or you could attempt through political might to change the rules upon which this country was founded in order to actively condemn and discriminate...


 
Actually, the rules on which this country was founded was pretty intolerant of homosexuallity.  That is why there are actually laws on the books that state outright that anyone engaging in sex other than vaginal/penal contact is illegal (to include sodomy, beastiallity, homosexual acts...).  Recognizing the rights to equal and fair treatment of gays in the US is, as was mentioned by an earlier poster, the new racism issue.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Homosexuallity isn't automatically 'love' but IS a preference for sex with same gender people.  Romanticising it doesn't help clarify the issue.  I am a Heterosexual and can honestly say that fact did not automatically mean that I 'loved' every girl/woman I tried to get together with in life.



Yes it does, because what we really are talking about is love AND sex.  You may not have "loved" every woman you've slept with, but there probably was a pretty good reason you ended up in bed together.  Those reasons _are part of loving another person_.  

I realize that some people have "sex" out of very negative feelings.  Perhaps they want to dominate a person because of something they feel inside.  Who knows, it doesn't matter.  This type of behavior isn't about sex or love and does not determine "homo" or "hetero".



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Quite honestly, with all the different denominations/variations within those denominations and such, even in Christianity there are places that are more accepting and allow Gays to be fully vested, even evangelical/priestly figures in their practice - instead of complaining about how these folks aren't getting fair treatment, just find the group that will - or start one.



I find your assumption harsh.  I feel like you are assuming that I am just "complaining" and doing nothing.  That is really unfair considering the medium in which we are communicating.  How do you know that I am not active about these things?  

If you believe in ending discrimination, then you need to fight for it.  And you need to fight the people who actively promote it...aka a Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage.  This is truly a new Civil Rights movement.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> This POV is contradictory to statements about how scientific discipline and systematic understanding was what was 'real' in the past (Wisc School/Creation thread for example) on the surface.  There you said that Science is real and things as subjective as beauty and 'heart' (another term for 'spirit' in some contexts) are not 'real' because they can not be defined or verified with evidence.
> 
> Can you clarify this surface contradiction for me please?



There is no contradiction because I haven't said that.  Science describes nature and those things are part of our natures in an objective sense.  In fact, there are lots of scientists who study love and beauty...they do so in an objective way, though.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 17, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Lifestyle...thats another one. My lifestyle is currently sitting around in an apartment with 3 cats, online, watching Iron Chef when I can. If I were to choose my lifestyle, you can bet your bippy it would be alot closer to Hefs, than what I currently have.


 This is the point I was trying to make - a lifestyle may include but is not indicated by one's sexual preference.  LOL about Hef's!!

 I agree with your point about "choice" as well.  I don't know any people who felt that they had, while growing up, a multiple choice quiz in front of them, or an old IBM punch card with their name on it.  Seriously - if I knew I had a choice and understood the test question a little better, I might have made a different one!  (HUMOR - JUST KIDDING!)  Is it too late to call, "Do-Over?"  (more humor - still kidding).


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It is possible to use other language to describe sexuality. It is possible to be specific about what you like as an individual. Labels help people generalize sexuality. They allow people to lump behavior together and suddenly everyone under that label MUST do the same things. Truly defining who is "gay" and who is "straight" is impossible.


 Thats an avid avoiding of the true issue. You dont have to negate lines and labels to accept a person either. Labels are ways of communicating, not (neccessarily) only ways to generalize and "lump behavior together". You have a much darker and bleaker outlook on the world than I do I guess. A label in no way means people "must behave the same". I guess "Native American" is a label, right? In that case for me to call myself Native American, do I have to become an alcoholic and gamble my little income away in a casino? Do I have to run around naked and wear feathers in my hair? Your assuming that a label is bad, many times labels can be good, to help us communicate. For example: We are all dying. "We are food for worms". In the Sylvia Plath sense of the word, everyone on this board is dying. However, dont we still use the "label" "dying" to describe a certain group? If we are all dying then who are those people being sent home to hospice? Aren't they truly dying? That example shows what labels can be good for...communicating. Its also as thin as your statements about everyone being gay and straight at the same time and being on a sliding scale of straightness. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You don't have to label yourself at all. All you have to do is make your preferences known. You express your sexuality in an individual way that need not include numbers. For instance one could say, "I find both men and women attractive. I've never slept with a man and I'm not interested right now. Yet, I have no problem with people of the same sex loving each other or sleeping with each other." No label fits this statement.


 Except the "label" of the word "love", and "sleeping". You see, you yourself are using labels to talk, lets not get on a semantic argument, the point is that the word "Gay" or "bisexual" has a definition and we must come to a common deffinition in order to truly discuss it. Are we saying "gay" means havin sex with a same sex partner? Being attracted to, loving, sleeping with, looking at, talking to, where does it end? What your saying includes all of this and I understand your point, but its self defeating. All it does is circumvent the issue and allow you to ease your conscience about accepting people different from you. "We are all gay to a point, so lets all get along". That isn't acceptence or tolerance, because there is nothing to accept or tolerate, everyone is the same in your scenario to a point. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Am I blurring the lines or did Nature do that for us? Perhaps the "answers" regarding sexuality are not found in Christianity. For instance, I love my wife. That love is a part of me and I can never make that go away. If someone said that it was wrong, all I could do is throw my hands in the air and tell them that I couldn't help it. For someone to accept me, they need to accept all of me or its just a cop out.


 Who said the answers for sexuality are found in christianity? I surely didn't. I did say acceptance, and I'm not sure what you mean by the analogy you gave or your statement about accepting "all of you". 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You may not have the choice. You are what you are and you cannot escape that. Finding someone attractive of the same sex doesn't make you "gay" but it demonstrates something that you and a "gay" person have in common. IT IS a step in their direction if you will. Hell, you could even check guys out together...


 I thought there was no "gay". See, there has to be a definition or the conclusion is that there are no differences, and the truth is simply that there is many differences, and those differences are what make us beautiful. Dont be so quick to take our differences away, true acceptance or tolerance isn't the doing away with differences, but knowing, understanding, and enjoyig our differences.

  7sm


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> That is the 'thing' that is the struggle for Democratic citizens. We have the right and freedom to be individuals but must balance that with how we treat other 'different' individuals - even when we don't agree/condone/approve of their practices or 'lifestyle.'
> 
> People, as citizens, seem to loose sight of a common goal or mission and therefore are not working toward that, letting the 'differences' become assets because someone else might come at a problem in a way that you don't and therefore solve it better, but see citizenship as something that gives them permission to complain and vent cart blanc.
> 
> ...


Testify, brother.  

I teach at the college level.  These are supposed to be bright students, ready - or at least not adverse to - to learn the material I will present.  Some of the classes I've taught have been higher-level electives.  And you would not believe (well, maybe you would) some of the offhand comments about how it's so hard - because I don't post the lecture notes (the overheads for the class) online ahead of class.  Or because my tests are not always all multiple choice.  Etc Etc.  

Of course, I'm fixating on a few people, and most of the students I've had have been just fine, indifferent, or great.

But there is this weird emphasis on personal feeling - and how I'm suppossed to respect that, no matter what - I've noticed.  Like students coming to me after an exam and saying, "I feel my grade doesn't reflect how much work I've put into the class.  I feel that it is unfair."  And then they look at me.  We can go over the test together, we can talk about what they got wrong, but at a certain point - what?  Your grade is not about how you feel about yourself - it's about measuring your performance.

WHEW!  Sorry, unexpected rant came out there!

Anyways, back to the main topic - I find the semantics of these arguments very intriguing.  I think for the most part, everyone here is in basic agreement about gay rights (or whatever you want to call it) functioning in society/politics today.  The differences seem to lie in the perspectives, the feelings about how much others should accept/tolerate/?? people with a different "lifestyle" as their own.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Testify, brother.
> 
> 1.  I teach at the college level...
> 
> ...


1.  I KNOW!  I helped my MA instructor at the college where he teaches a self defense course and as the years went by students demonstrated a serious decline in personal initiative, effort and work ethic from year to year...  I sympathize with the rant.

2.  And your focus on how people are 'pushing' their 'feelings' about what other people should or should not be doing is what interests me too.  Especially when it is occuring in a discussion about a groups right to seen as equal regardless of the differences in 'feelings' about them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats an avid avoiding of the true issue. You dont have to negate lines and labels to accept a person either. Labels are ways of communicating, not (neccessarily) only ways to generalize and "lump behavior together". You have a much darker and bleaker outlook on the world than I do I guess. A label in no way means people "must behave the same". I guess "Native American" is a label, right? In that case for me to call myself Native American, do I have to become an alcoholic and gamble my little income away in a casino? Do I have to run around naked and wear feathers in my hair? Your assuming that a label is bad, many times labels can be good, to help us communicate. For example: We are all dying. "We are food for worms". In the Sylvia Plath sense of the word, everyone on this board is dying. However, dont we still use the "label" "dying" to describe a certain group? If we are all dying then who are those people being sent home to hospice? Aren't they truly dying? That example shows what labels can be good for...communicating. Its also as thin as your statements about everyone being gay and straight at the same time and being on a sliding scale of straightness.



I think you are confusing the issue.  Extending my POV to take into account all labeling is far beyond the point I am trying to make.  My point has always been our language to describe our sexuality is too limited to take into account the diversity that actually exists.  The labels "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" have an attached sub-set of meaning but most people do not fall into those buckets.  Our sexuality is not so easily pegged.  It is very grey and we share many sexual preferences with others in other "groups".  And I think that it is very important that we realize this.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Except the "label" of the word "love", and "sleeping". You see, you yourself are using labels to talk, lets not get on a semantic argument, the point is that the word "Gay" or "bisexual" has a definition and we must come to a common deffinition in order to truly discuss it.



With some labels we have a much clearer understanding.  With others, the understanding resembles mud.  Taxonomy is a part of being human.  It is how our brain works.  It allows us to organize information.  My point is that the way our information is organized into the labels of "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" does not reflect reality.  In reality, this is a common discussion in the human experience.  We are redefining the subsets (and in many ways the titles) of the files we carry about in our minds regarding reality based on new information as it presents itself.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Are we saying "gay" means havin sex with a same sex partner? Being attracted to, loving, sleeping with, looking at, talking to, where does it end? What your saying includes all of this and I understand your point, but its self defeating. All it does is circumvent the issue and allow you to ease your conscience about accepting people different from you. "We are all gay to a point, so lets all get along". That isn't acceptence or tolerance, because there is nothing to accept or tolerate, everyone is the same in your scenario to a point.



It is not self defeating.  It is self empowering when one finds commonalities with another person.  It allows a person to fellowship with that person and it forms a rapport that truly makes that other person more human in your eyes.  Realizing that I can share sexual preferences with another allows me to form a basis from which I can accept our differences more easily and it in no way demands that they must be exactly like me.  What you call an "easing of the conscience" is the process of acceptance.  It is something that we all do naturally, unless we have been educated differently...as is the case with homosexuality in our society.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Who said the answers for sexuality are found in christianity? I surely didn't. I did say acceptance, and I'm not sure what you mean by the analogy you gave or your statement about accepting "all of you".





> Like Paul said, there needs to be acceptance even across from your own beliefs. Someone who is not gay, who believes being gay is wrong, should still be able to accept a gay person. Thats acceptance, not blurring the lines enough to include yourself so you can then accept them. If your a "christian" and believe being gay is wrong and anabomination against God, you should still be able to accept a gay person, because isn't speeding also wrong? I guess those people never speed either?



I took this to mean that you implied that some people found answers for sexuality in Christian teachings.  I thought the message was clear, but I apologize if I took it wrong.  My point with the analogy is that you cannot separate the sin from the sinner _in this case_.  The _sin _ is part of who I am as a person and I have no choice in the matter.  Therefore, in order to accept me for who I am, one must accept all of me.  They cannot just shop around for the items they agree with.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I thought there was no "gay". See, there has to be a definition or the conclusion is that there are no differences, and the truth is simply that there is many differences, and those differences are what make us beautiful. Dont be so quick to take our differences away, true acceptance or tolerance isn't the doing away with differences, but knowing, understanding, and enjoyig our differences.



Our language is insufficiant to describe our sexuality.  Finding a new way to talk about it does not squash difference.  Neither does discovering that we share many sexual preferences with a variety of people.  We need to be frank in our appraisal of ourselves, not fearful.  We need to be truthful about our sexual preferences in order to knock down the barriers that have been strung up between us.  I have no problem admitting that I share some sexual preferences with a person directly involved in a homosexual relationship and this doesn't make me anything other then who I already was in the first place.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't have to define it. I'm saying that you may be who you are. Our language does not describe reality and I think that understanding the "homo" or "hetero" in us all really gets to the heart of who we are as individuals. We are beautiful beings who love a variety of different things. Why bind that beauty with a label?


That was the quote that I was saying contradicted, at least IMO comments such as this:

"Science means knowledge. True knowledge. Real knowledge. In a scientist's mind, a real world exists and we believe that we can know that world through observation. You can't just "teach it as you see fit" because then you are not addressing the real world. You are not teaching science."

In one you say you don't have to define a thing in order to discuss it.  In the other you talk about science meaning true and real knowledge through observation.  That would require some labelling/categorizing as standard practice for a scientific examination of anything.

Science can observe HOW people define beauty and HOW people define 'love' and what affects it has on biology, culture, interactions and such, but beyond that it is like trying to tell someone about Jazz...it isn't as 'real' as being there.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1.  You may not have "loved" every woman you've slept with, but there probably was a pretty good reason you ended up in bed together. Those reasons _are part of loving another person_.
> 
> 2.  I realize that some people have "sex" out of very negative feelings. Perhaps they want to dominate a person because of something they feel inside. Who knows, it doesn't matter. This type of behavior isn't about sex or love and does not determine "homo" or "hetero".


1.  I would say there was a 'powerful' reason for why I TRIED to end up in bed with those past women because I wasn't always successful .  In hindsight, I would say that 'romance/love/intimacy' were not my prime mover in most cases...chalk it up to good old lust/labido/youthful exuberance in most cases.  "love" may have been the rationale, but it wasn't the real reason.  

Honestly, I am not sure if you are using the euphemistic form of 'love' for 'sex' in this case or not.

2.  Why would 'lust' or 'mutual attraction' or the 'chemical/biological drive to reproduce' necessarily mean 'negative feelings?'  Got the population of the human race to where it could progress to the quality of life we enjoy now more than 'love' did IMO.  There is a chimp population that uses 'sexual politics' as a form of negotiation, alliances, reconcilliation, consulation, apology....all motives for sex that humans (who share quite a bit of DNA with those damn dirty Chimps) can relate to...at least to themselves after the fact  and I would say that as long as both/all parties involved were consenting and not conned into it, to each his/her own....

To assume/push the idea that 'sex' must or mostly will be because of love is not a supportable or evidential observation and nothing more than an opinion.

Your beloved scientists generally agree that there are biochemical reactions in the body that create a euphoric state that 'feels like love' but can not say what 'love' really is beyond that....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 17, 2004)

I had a thought...somewhat scary...."MartialTalk, the board thats really 'out' there." 
I need to cut back on my caffine I think.  :wavey:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> That was the quote that I was saying contradicted, at least IMO comments such as this:
> 
> "Science means knowledge. True knowledge. Real knowledge. In a scientist's mind, a real world exists and we believe that we can know that world through observation. You can't just "teach it as you see fit" because then you are not addressing the real world. You are not teaching science."
> 
> ...



Science uses language and labels to understand nature.  This is a reflection of the abstraction processes at work in our mind.  When we place a label on something, we are attaching a certain sub-set of information.  These labels change when new information presents itself and the change when we discover that we totally screwed up with the information we were given in the first place.

As it stands now, our language is insufficiant to describe our sexuality.  The labels "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" aren't telling us much about observed reality.  They are useless in a scientific sense.  Perhaps a better way to say the above is that we can't use our current terms to describe human sexuality.  My effort to not define it in those terms is an effort to more correctly define it in other terms.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 17, 2004)

UpNorth,

I see some misconceptions that I think need to be addressed here.

I'll talk about one, then I have to run to the store.

Labeling: In order to have a coherent discussion, or arguement for that matter, parties involved have to have agreed upon terms or "labels." I have friends both here and elseware who like to make logical arguements based off of "labels" that I haven't agreed with, thus leading to, in my mind, incorrect conclusions.

Now, this is not the same as "framing." A frame is a conceptual structure used in thinking. What many conservatives have done (not picking on conservatives, just using them as an example because they are very good at 'framing') is evoked frames around words that may not truthfully fit the word, and they use those frames to invoke a particular view, otherwise known by most as 'spin.' This is best described through example. A negative frame was put in place around the term "trial Lawyer." The term envokes, in many people, images of ambulance chasing, oily, money grubbing,  immoral beaurucrates. This does not fit the discription of most/many trial lawyers, yet, that is the "frame" that has been put around the term. With the frame in place, all conservatives had to do was call Sen. John Edwards a "trial Lawyer" in order to invoke negative and insulting images. Unethical use of framing is usually the antithesis to a logical discussion, because often it invokes untrue images and emotions around terms.

This is related to my little "homosexual lifestyle" term. Many people have illogically framed the words "homosexual lifestyle" to mean "Orgies, child rape, drugs, and hedonistic behavior." This frame is untrue, as it certianly doesn't fit many homosexual peoples lifestyles. Framing words as such is the antithesis for logical discourse on this subject.

However, the idea that we are all really multi-sexual beings or are only gay or not gay to certian degrees, and therefore we shouldn't use 'labels' like "homosexual or "hetrosexual" is also the antithesis of logical discourse here. Whether your 'multi-sexualism' theory is true or not, we still need terms or 'labels' in order to have a coherent conversation about anything. So we need to talk in terms of "hetrosexual" meaning "desires the opposite sex" and "homosexual" meaning "desires the same sex" and "hetrosexual behavior" as "the persuance of opposite sex intimate relationships" and "homosexual behavior" as "the persuance of same sex intimate relationships," etc. etc. etc.

Bottom line: I agree that unethical use of framing is the antithesis of a good discussion. However, so is refusing to agree on terms or 'labels' for the purpose of discussing the issue's. I think that you may be falling into the trap of the later.

Paul


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Science uses language and labels to understand nature. This is a reflection of the abstraction processes at work in our mind. When we place a label on something, we are attaching a certain sub-set of information. These labels change when new information presents itself and the change when we discover that we totally screwed up with the information we were given in the first place.
> 
> As it stands now, our language is insufficiant to describe our sexuality. The labels "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" aren't telling us much about observed reality. They are useless in a scientific sense. Perhaps a better way to say the above is that we can't use our current terms to describe human sexuality. My effort to not define it in those terms is an effort to more correctly define it in other terms.


 
If I am talking to a guy/girl and she says straight out (no pun intended) that he/she prefers intimate relations with members of the same gender, that admission is evidence that can be combined with any observable behaviors that support that statement (kissing his boyfriend, holding hands, expressions of romantic affection/commitment)... as 'proof' that he/she is 'gay' by direct observation.

I think that is very telling about observed reality because there are people out there that would observe that reality and be so offended by it that they would commit hate crimes.

I would say that a check in that one box of sexual preference in no way defines a person as "good" or "bad" all by itself.  There are probably 'dogs/players/cheaters/abusers/users' in the gay community just like there are in the straight.  Sexual preference alone is NO indicator of character IMO.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 17, 2004)

IMHO, you are never going to mandate "acceptance".There are probably just as many racist bigots today as there were in the 60's. We didnt make people "accept" other races, we just removed institutionalized practices.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I would say there was a 'powerful' reason for why I TRIED to end up in bed with those past women because I wasn't always successful .  In hindsight, I would say that *'romance/love/intimacy' * were not my prime mover in most cases...chalk it up to good old *lust/labido/youthful* exuberance in most cases.  "love" may have been the rationale, but it wasn't the real reason.


 
I would say that those motivations are wrapped up in the package that most people would call "love".  I know that every woman I've had sex with I've cared about in some way shape or form...

Perhaps there are different gradations of "love".



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Why would 'lust' or 'mutual attraction' or the 'chemical/biological drive to reproduce' necessarily mean 'negative feelings?'  Got the population of the human race to where it could progress to the quality of life we enjoy now more than 'love' did IMO.  There is a chimp population that uses 'sexual politics' as a form of negotiation, alliances, reconcilliation, consulation, apology....all motives for sex that humans (who share quite a bit of DNA with those damn dirty Chimps) can relate to...at least to themselves after the fact  and I would say that as long as both/all parties involved were consenting and not conned into it, to each his/her own.



I was trying to make the distinction between love/sex and violence/sex.  Our species uses "love" to pair bond allowing groups of individuals (families) to be tighter nit and more successful.  



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> To assume/push the idea that 'sex' must or mostly will be because of love is not a supportable or evidential observation and nothing more than an opinion.



That depends on what your definition of "love" is.  I believe that in this case our language is limited again...but that is another thread.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Your beloved scientists generally agree that there are biochemical reactions in the body that create a euphoric state that 'feels like love' but can not say what 'love' really is beyond that....



And I would say that you and your _cunning linguists_ have yet to come up with a real sub-set of information that falls under the label love. 

Perhaps we are both at fault... :idunno:


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Extending my POV to take into account all labeling is far beyond the point I am trying to make.


 So some labeling is ok and accepted, but certain specific labeling is bad and wrong? That creates an inconsistency within your own POV. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I would say that those motivations are wrapped up in the package that most people would call "love". I know that every woman I've had sex with I've cared about in some way shape or form...


 If that is love, what do you mean when you tell your wife (I thought I recalled you saying you are married) "I love you"? Do you have to define it first, what you are meaning by saying that? See, there has to be a common base of understanding, otherwise discussions and communication gets nowhere. Right now you are refusing to accept any kind of common understanding of labels. Labels only carry a stigma in your head.

  7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> However, the idea that we are all really multi-sexual beings or are only gay or not gay to certian degrees, and therefore we shouldn't use 'labels' like "homosexual or "hetrosexual" is also the antithesis of logical discourse here. Whether your 'multi-sexualism' theory is true or not, we still need terms or 'labels' in order to have a coherent conversation about anything. So we need to talk in terms of "hetrosexual" meaning "desires the opposite sex" and "homosexual" meaning "desires the same sex" and "hetrosexual behavior" as "the persuance of opposite sex intimate relationships" and "homosexual behavior" as "the persuance of same sex intimate relationships," etc. etc. etc.



Good point about framing.  

Paul, what I want people to recognize are all the little steps involved in words like "persuance".  There are a lot of steps involved before you end up in bed with someone...For instance, hanging a poster of an oiled up body builder on the wall while I bench press may seem like "innocent" yet there lies within me a desire to emulate.  Any motivation inspired by that poster is clearly because of my attraction to that image.  Does this make me "gay"?  We don't have words to describe this...yet I happen to share this with someone who might happen to be "gay" according to sociatal standards.  Why is this different from hanging a playboy calander by my phone?  In my own way, I am attracted to both.  So what am I?

Regarding this debate, since when did same sex relationships become wrong, I don't think they have ever been wrong.  All of us display affection towards the opposite and the same sex to a different degree.  I realize that this might hit people square in the semanticles, yet I think that it is something that people need to address in order to be truly honest with themselves.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> If I am talking to a guy/girl and she says straight out (no pun intended) that he/she prefers intimate relations with members of the same gender, that admission is evidence that can be combined with any observable behaviors that support that statement (kissing his boyfriend, holding hands, expressions of romantic affection/commitment)... as 'proof' that he/she is 'gay' by direct observation.



Paul, you can construct a parable to the current cultural definition quite easily.  I imagine that you could construct a parable that defies definition by the current cultural definition just as easily.  More easily because the combinations of details are endless...

Think about it...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So some labeling is ok and accepted, but certain specific labeling is bad and wrong? That creates an inconsistency within your own POV.



I don't think this is inconsistant.  Labeling that does not take into account a good representation of reality is in need of revision.  Our view of sexual roles is grossly simplified and in no way takes into account the wide range of sexual preferences within us all.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> If that is love, what do you mean when you tell your wife (I thought I recalled you saying you are married) "I love you"? Do you have to define it first, what you are meaning by saying that? See, there has to be a common base of understanding, otherwise discussions and communication gets nowhere.



Yes.  When you are married you DO need to define what LOVE means.  Both people involved need to be on the same page regarding this very abstract concept.  Times change and love evolves, communication with my spouse is the only way we are able to stay married.  So, I hope you see that there is a common base of understand, yet this understanding is very individualized...would you agree with everything that my wife and I do...probably not.  See what I mean?



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Right now you are refusing to accept any kind of common understanding of labels. Labels only carry a stigma in your head.



I hope that you can see that this is obviously not the case.  Labels are important to us all as long as they are applied correctly.  In the case of human sexuality, I think they are grossly misapplied.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 17, 2004)

But the concept is simple. You have to agree on terms to have a basis for a discussion.

It depends on we have to define "wrong" for a basis of this discussion.

We also have to agree on definitions (or 'labels') of terms like "homosexual" and "lifestyle" and so on. These can be defined, as I did above, broadly and agreeably enough to have logical discourse.

What you are doing is what I call "the fox news strategy." I call it this because this is a strategy frequently employed by Fox news personalities. The strategy is to basically cloud the arguement so much that people question their sensabilities, and the original arguement evaporates in thin air. Fox News does this to prevent having to have logical discourse or arguements, when the results of those discussions may not favor their worldview. 

Example: 

Newscaster: "Senator, Explain how you voted for the war, and now your against it?"
Guest: "I didn't vote for the war. We voted to give the President the power to decide based on the evidence if we should go to war or not. He decided to go to war based on insuffecient evidence."
Newscaster: "So you voted for the war, and now your against the war... how can you expect the American people to trust the Democrates to make decisions with all this flip-flopping!"

You see, in the above example, the conversation gets twisted into a discussion about whether or not the Democrates are "flip floppers" and whether or not they can be trusted with decision making. No logical discourse can occur on what the original vote was about, and why the guest doesn't support the war, and what evidence was insuffecient, and so on.

Well, that is sort of what your doing in this conversation. Instead of being able to agree on very simple terms so we can discuss the idea of homosexuality being considered "wrong" or not, etc., the conversation is twisted into a discussion about human sexuality and the psychology of how gay it would be to put a poster of a body builder in front of the bench press, and so on. All of this seems to be an attempt to get people to question their own sexuality and degree of "gayness," to fit your worldview of "everyone is gay, but just to different degrees." This way, if everyone is gay, then I guess there can be nothing wrong with being gay.

The problem with this is that although it twists the discussion into your worldview, it doesn't really address the topic. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but this is just what is occuring here.

It would be better if we simply decided what we meant by "wrong," went with some simple yet agreeable and reasonable definitions for terms like "homosexual behavior," and had logical discourse on when and where homosexuality was considered "wrong," and why that was, and so on. This would be more prudent to the topic, I think.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 17, 2004)

But the concept is simple. You have to agree on terms to have a basis for a discussion.

It depends on we have to define "wrong" for a basis of this discussion.

We also have to agree on definitions (or 'labels') of terms like "homosexual" and "lifestyle" and so on. These can be defined, as I did above, broadly and agreeably enough to have logical discourse.

What you are doing is what I call "the fox news strategy." I call it this because this is a strategy frequently employed by Fox news personalities. The strategy is to basically cloud the arguement so much that people question their sensabilities, and the original arguement evaporates in thin air. Fox News does this to prevent having to have logical discourse or arguements, when the results of those discussions may not favor their worldview. 

Example: 

Newscaster: "Senator, Explain how you voted for the war, and now your against it?"
Guest: "I didn't vote for the war. We voted to give the President the power to decide based on the evidence if we should go to war or not. He decided to go to war based on insuffecient evidence."
Newscaster: "So you voted for the war, and now your against the war... how can you expect the American people to trust the Democrates to make decisions with all this flip-flopping!"

You see, in the above example, the conversation gets twisted into a discussion about whether or not the Democrates are "flip floppers" and whether or not they can be trusted with decision making. No logical discourse can occur on what the original vote was about, and why the guest doesn't support the war, and what evidence was insuffecient, and so on.

Well, that is sort of what your doing in this conversation. Instead of being able to agree on very simple terms so we can discuss the idea of homosexuality being considered "wrong" or not, etc., the conversation is twisted into a discussion about human sexuality and the psychology of how gay it would be to put a poster of a body builder in front of the bench press, and so on. All of this seems to be an attempt to get people to question their own sexuality and degree of "gayness," to fit your worldview of "everyone is gay, but just to different degrees." This way, if everyone is gay, then I guess there can be nothing wrong with being gay.

The problem with this is that although it twists the discussion into your worldview, it doesn't really address the topic. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but this is just what is occuring here.

It would be better if we simply decided what we meant by "wrong," went with some simple yet agreeable and reasonable definitions for terms like "homosexual behavior," and had logical discourse on when and where homosexuality was considered "wrong," and why that was, and so on. This would be more prudent to the topic, I think.

Paul


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 17, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> But the concept is simple. You have to agree on terms to have a basis for a discussion.



If the terms are inadequate to discuss the topic, how can we agree?  If you called a dog a cat and I called it something else, we will end up being more confused.  Where is Carolus Linnaeus you you need him?



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> We also have to agree on definitions (or 'labels') of terms like "homosexual" and "lifestyle" and so on. These can be defined, as I did above, broadly and agreeably enough to have logical discourse.



Your definitions were in fact very narrow.  There are many steps and gradations that need to be taken in to account.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> What you are doing is what I call "the fox news strategy." I call it this because this is a strategy frequently employed by Fox news personalities. The strategy is to basically cloud the arguement so much that people question their sensabilities, and the original arguement evaporates in thin air. Fox News does this to prevent having to have logical discourse or arguements, when the results of those discussions may not favor their worldview.



Come on now...this is not an attempt to obfuscate, this is an attempt to clarify and to bring to light more detail then has been addressed.  In your example you describing a complex position becoming so simple that it no longer describes reality.  In this situation we are taking a simple position that has little bearing on reality and expanding it to fit a larger pool of data.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> You see, in the above example, the conversation gets twisted into a discussion about whether or not the Democrates are "flip floppers" and whether or not they can be trusted with decision making. No logical discourse can occur on what the original vote was about, and why the guest doesn't support the war, and what evidence was insuffecient, and so on.



Logical discourse cannot occur if people do not have a clear picture of what we are talking about.  The discussion about when same-sex relationships became wrong is far broader then when it became wrong to sleep with a member of the same sex.  That is nothing but a cultural definition of psuedo-religious belief and it doesn't take into account the steps we all take...some more then others.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Well, that is sort of what your doing in this conversation. Instead of being able to agree on very simple terms so we can discuss the idea of homosexuality being considered "wrong" or not, etc., the conversation is twisted into a discussion about human sexuality and the psychology of how gay it would be to put a poster of a body builder in front of the bench press, and so on.



Paul, sometimes there are no simple terms to discuss issues.  The particle/wave duality suddenly pops to mind...students in physics first examine this with a one dimensional equation called the Schroedinger Equation but we are always told that it actually is more complex.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> All of this seems to be an attempt to get people to question their own sexuality and degree of "gayness," to fit your worldview of "everyone is gay, but just to different degrees." This way, if everyone is gay, then I guess there can be nothing wrong with being gay.



This IS an attempt to get people to question their own sexuality.  This IS an attempt to encourage self knowledge.  So many people shy away from this type of thing because they are afraid of the answer, because they intrinsically _know _ what I am talking about.  Am I really enforcing my worldview on people or are people thinking more honestly about "homosexual" and "heterosexual" behavior?  Again, how can you discuss whether something is wrong without knowing what IS wrong?



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that although it twists the discussion into your worldview, it doesn't really address the topic. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but this is just what is occuring here.



Go ahead, put me on the spot.  I think that I've put a lot of people on the spot in this discussion.  I think there has been a lot of rationalization and a lot of hmmmm moments.  Good.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> It would be better if we simply decided what we meant by "wrong," went with some simple yet agreeable and reasonable definitions for terms like "homosexual behavior," and had logical discourse on when and where homosexuality was considered "wrong," and why that was, and so on. This would be more prudent to the topic, I think.



The lines will always be artificial.  They will always be based upon current cultural beleif and may have little to do with what might actually exist in reality unless this discussion is carried to fruition.  "Homosexual behavior" is more then what it currently has been defined.  The same goes for "Heterosexual behavior".  The topic of this thread is discussing the drawing of a line between acceptable and unacceptable homo/hetero behavior.  I am trying to point out that the line is artificial.  When was that line drawn?  Why?  Knowing that the line IS artificial is a KEY peice of information in this discussion.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 17, 2004)

O.K....well, Upnorth, I still say your obfuscating the issues in an attempt to get people to question themselves enough until they agree with your "everyone is multisexual" worldview, so you can then argue "you see, if everyone is gay to varied degrees, then how could homosexuality be 'wrong'." You've practically admitted it:



> This IS an attempt to get people to question their own sexuality. This IS an attempt to encourage self knowledge. So many people shy away from this type of thing because they are afraid of the answer, because they intrinsically know what I am talking about.



Unfortunatily, as I said, this isn't really promoting a logical discussion, only an agenda.

The terms, in the broad sense, are not difficult to agree on. But, if you want to keep using fox-news tactics, then I guess that is your decision and I won't stop you....just so long as you and everyone else knows exactly what your trying to do.

Again, don't mean to sound harsh. I am not mad at ya, but this is just how I see it.

Paul :supcool:


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 18, 2004)

I completely agree with Paul's post. The nature of your argument, upnorth, obfuscates the logical discussion. In fact, its pretty frustrating and anoying. It seems your resting on the fact that others will become so tired of your faulty argument that they will stop posting and you "win". You said yourself that "Logical discourse cannot occur if people do not have a clear picture of what we are talking about." However, you refuse to set an agreed upon "label" or "term" for what we *are* talking about.

 7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2004)

In historical terms, somehow a line was drawn in the sand of human sexuality and everything south of that line became immoral.  People are focusing on the line and forgetting to see the sandbox.  I'm attempting to point out the sandbox and the artificial nature of the line.  In the nature of this thread's discussion this is a KEY point.  This is because, as Kaith orginally pointed out, the entire sandbox of human sexuality was once accepted in a much different way.  Why did the line get draw where it did?  When?  

There really is no other agenda other then that.  I'm not arguing to *win * anything.  In the clearest sense of the word, this is not obfuscation.  It is clarification.  The sandbox point of view starts by pointing out the continuum of sexuality.  It starts by making links across that artificial line.  It starts with a little self-examination.  And suddenly the bigger picture comes into view.  Don't be so hasty to jump to the simplest definition.  You may be focusing on the finger and missing the moon in which it happens to be pointing.

I once had a professor who said that people who engage in arguing the definition of a word are engaging in a semanticle.  He then went on to point out, much later after class over a few beers, that semanticles were like testicles, the more you kick them around, the more it starts to hurt.  

I think this has run its course...


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 18, 2004)

1. Most people are trying to avoid a "semantical" (Mom...I just used a new word!  ) here by trying to agree with simple definitions. You're the one who I am seeing who doesn't want to agree with simple, generally accepted definitions, or even offer an alternate definition (if the agreed upon ones don't suffice) to simple words that pertain to the discussion. 

2. On History: You, Upnorth, said, "as Kaith orginally pointed out, the entire sandbox of human sexuality was once accepted in a much different way." Well, I think there is a misconception going on here related to this. There seems to be this false idea going around that everyone was gay (to some degree according to you) and happy, and that lines between hetrosexuality and homosexuality didn't exist before Christianity. A fanciful idea, but with no historical basis that I have seen.

It seems that at different times and in different cultures, homosexuality has been both shunned, tolerated, and accepted to different degrees. These degrees varied depending on the worldview of the culture at the time. There was no time when everyone on the planet was gay "to different degrees" and happy, then along came Jesus-lovers (begin Darth Vader enterance music here) to end all the fun. This is a total misconception with no historical basis behind it.

3. If by saying "artificial line" you mean that in the bedroom, different strokes for different folks, then O.K., I'll agree. If your saying that there are no clear lines between homosexuals (those that prefer the same sex) hetrosexuals (those that prefer the opposite sex) and bisexuals (those that can go "both ways"), then I say "phoey." If that was true, then I could tell the next lesbian that I run into that she should date one of my guy friends because there are no real clear distinction her preference for women over men ya know, and I could also go tell my Mom next time she is having boyfriend trouble to go try dating chicks because there are no clear lines and... uh... "ya never know til ya try it." Hey, while I'm at it, I'll just offer up my rear end the next time one of my guy friends is feelin' randy, cause ya know, its reeely all the same anyhow ('specially in the dark with snorkling gear).

Again...I say phoey to that. Boys have "penises" and girls have "bagina's," and there are clearly those who would only prefer sexual relationships with the opposite sex, those who would only prefer the same sex, and those who could prefer either.

Gee...now I feel like a sex ed teacher. And no, you cannot get a girl pregnant through her belly button....    Any other questions kids?   :idunno: 

 :ultracool 
Paul


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> 1. Most people are trying to avoid a "semantical" (Mom...I just used a new word!  ) here by trying to agree with simple definitions. You're the one who I am seeing who doesn't want to agree with simple, generally accepted definitions, or even offer an alternate definition (if the agreed upon ones don't suffice) to simple words that pertain to the discussion.



The sandbox is bigger then you think.  Frued is a figure who jumps to mind who first saw an expanded picture...either way, this is an important aspect of this discussion.  Simple definitions do not work in reality just as in the case of the Schroedinger Equation analogy I brought up before...the wave/particle duality predicted one dimensionally sometimes predicts reality, but there are alot of exceptions...

By the way, I'm not claiming that Frued had it right either...



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> 2. On History: You, Upnorth, said, "as Kaith orginally pointed out, the entire sandbox of human sexuality was once accepted in a much different way." Well, I think there is a misconception going on here related to this. There seems to be this false idea going around that everyone was gay (to some degree according to you) and happy, and that lines between hetrosexuality and homosexuality didn't exist before Christianity. A fanciful idea, but with no historical basis that I have seen.



Oh please.  You've read the bible.  I've read 17 different bibles.  Some of the passages in some of them are clearly discriminatory against homosexuals.  Some of these passeges were written at various historical times in history.  Why?  Clearly, in the past, there were different rules.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> _It seems that at *different times * and in different cultures, homosexuality has been both shunned, tolerated, and accepted to different degrees. These degrees varied depending on the worldview of the culture at the time._ *There was no time when everyone on the planet was gay "to different degrees"* and happy, then along came Jesus-lovers (begin Darth Vader enterance music here) to end all the fun. This is a total misconception with no historical basis behind it.



You totally contradict yourself here.  And I think that you do this because you persist in using a one dimensional defninition of "gay".  You clearly understand that the sandbox was different in the past and that it changed...this "gay and happy" is part of a cultural filter you are looking through.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> 3. If by saying "artificial line" you mean that in the bedroom, different strokes for different folks, then O.K., I'll agree. If your saying that there are no clear lines between homosexuals (those that prefer the same sex) hetrosexuals (those that prefer the opposite sex) and bisexuals (those that can go "both ways"), then I say "phoey." If that was true, then I could tell the next lesbian that I run into that she should date one of my guy friends because there are no real clear distinction her preference for women over men ya know, and I could also go tell my Mom next time she is having boyfriend trouble to go try dating chicks because there are no clear lines and... uh... "ya never know til ya try it." Hey, while I'm at it, I'll just offer up my rear end the next time one of my guy friends is feelin' randy, cause ya know, its reeely all the same anyhow ('specially in the dark with snorkling gear)..



Here is where the logic behind my sandbox analogy fails, because depending on _choice_, you can play anywhere in the sandbox.  And your analogies dramatically point this out.  Yet, this is still just a one dimensional representation of reality.  _Choice_, plays a part to some degree, but _choice _ is influenced by your _position _ in the "sandbox".  That is the limitation of describing sexuality as a sandbox.

Here is hypothetical example what what I am talking about.  A man is married, he has two kids.  He's been in love with women twice in his life and has slept with both of those women.  This man has also had more casual sexual relationships...some of them included more then one people and the sexual ratio was not always weighted in the female direction.  This man has made friends with others who have formed same sex relationships.  If they happen to be women, he is able to appraise other women sexually.  If they happen to be men, he is able to appraise other men sexually.  This man also has watched porn depicting same sex and opposite sex relationships.  In movies, this man is moved by strong female roles.  He is also moved by strong male roles attempted to emulate some of them at various times in his life...I could go on and on adding more statements that obviously are connected to human sexuality, but I think I've made my point.  How do you label this man with our current language?

This is where the sandbox analogy is still usefull, though (more useful then the current definitions in my opinion).  He has clearly played in once court most of his life, yet there are foot prints in different areas.  He has never totally crossed the sandbox, though.

Perhaps this would make a better thread on its own.  I think this discussion is interesting and its a shame to see it buried so deep in another thread...



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Again...I say phoey to that. Boys have "penises" and girls have "bagina's," and there are clearly those who would only prefer sexual relationships with the opposite sex, those who would only prefer the same sex, and those who could prefer either.



As you can see from the above example, this is NOT so clear.  If you take into account ALL of the sexual things we do, the picture gets incredibly grey.  This is because the picture is beginning to reflect reality.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 19, 2004)

1. This is not the Schroedinger Equation. We are talking, simply, about coming up with categories based on what gender someone prefers sexually. This is a very simple task, unless of course your just trying to cloud the issue. 

2. On history, again: That's nice that you've read 17 bibles. It is rare to see a scientest, as you say you are, who reads bibles in their spare time. For someone so biblically well read, I am surprised that you didn't notice that the bible(s) are actually a compilation of different books by different authors (each with different intentions) that span over a large period of time. So, when an author in an old testiment scripture says something negative about homosexuality, guess what, that is a different culture (not american christian) in a different time period. Ya know, cause last time I checked, Falwell or Jones didn't write any part of the scripture, despite what they say.   

However, I am not talking about the Bible. Oddly, not unlike a christian rightest, you totally went there, and I am shocked. 

I am simply talking about human history in general; different cultures in different time periods. When you look at different cultures from different times, some shunned, some tolerated, and some accepted homosexuality. The idea that everyone was gay to a certian degree (again, this is what you claim not me) and no one drew "lines in the sand" until the christians came along is unfounded nonsense.

3. I do agree that human psychology plays a role in sexual behavior. There is no question about it. However, someone can very easily determine what they prefer, regardless of this behavior.

Example: some people want to be pooped on during a sexual act. Guess what, although this may surprise you, but I don't want to be pooped on during a sexual act. By your standard, if the circumstances were appropriate, then I would want to be pooped on because, ya know, things just aren't black and white like that.

Well, I again say this is ridicules. If one doesn't prefer to be pooped on, we can easily put them in the "I don't want to be pooped on" category. Similarly, we can put people in a category based on their gender preference.

Your making a very easy task into a complicated one to fit your worldview that everyone is really gay. Obsurd. I see that you have that other thread though, so I guess we can continue that topic there, if there is anything else to say on the matter...

Paul


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 20, 2004)

Terminology LUNCH SPECIAL:

Pick ONE definition from each word, move along, more customers behind.  Free fortune cookie when you pay at the cash register!......Let's go, thank you for discussing at HARRY'S HOUSE OF RHETORIC.....Did you get your ticket punched?  11th discussion free if you do.

*love* _n._ 


A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness. 
A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance. 

Sexual passion. 
Sexual intercourse. 
A love affair. 

An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object. 
A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment. 
An expression of one's affection: Send him my love. 

A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language. 
The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love. 

*Love* _Mythology._ Eros or Cupid. 
often *Love* _Christianity._ Charity. 
_Sports._ A zero score in tennis. 
 

*sex* (s ks)
_n._ 


The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions. 
Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification. 
Females or males considered as a group. 
The condition or character of being female or male; the physiological, functional, and psychological differences that distinguish the female and the male. 
The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior. 
Sexual intercourse.



*homosexual*

adj : sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual] n : someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex [syn: homo, gay]

*lust*

n 1: a strong sexual desire [syn: lecherousness, lustfulness] 2: self-indulgent sexual desire (personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: luxuria] v : have a craving, appetite, or great desire for [syn: crave, hunger, thirst, starve]

*horn·y* 



Having horns or hornlike projections. 


Made of horn or a similar substance. 
Tough and calloused: horny skin. 
_Vulgar Slang._ 
Desirous of sexual activity. 
Sexually aroused. 

 


 I understand where UpNorth is going, but the assumption that all sexual intercourse fits into two major categories defined as 'love' or 'violence' is a bit unscientific to me.  It, by the very nature of the term, denies the biological, scientifically provable aspects of our 'animal' make up IMO.

"Love making"  or "love" as a description of sex, the desire for sex regardless of gender preference is a Judeo/Christian euphemism that imposes a cultural perspective on a biological function/chemical reaction and basic urge of all animals.

We just happen to be complicated enough to have to torture ourselves trying to figure out/justify/apologize for being 'human animals' with these urges....


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 20, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> I must respectfully disagree with your first comments. I think it depends upon the church. For instance, as a non-Catholic, I am not allowed to take mass (communion) in a Catholic church. My argument is and has always been that Jesus ate with known sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes. Why am I less worthy than they, because I don't follow Catholic teachings?
> 
> Peace,
> Melissa


I understand your frustration, for years, I basically was a heiretic because I was not confirmed, had first communion or anything other than a Baptism (non Catholic) and during my military service days I attended and took communion regularly because, though it wasn't 'right' in the eyes of the 'body politic' of Christ (Canon law), it was personally 'right' to me and I chose to do it anyway because I considered it an important gesture for me between myself and God.

By no means does your lack of acceptance as elligible to recieve communion make you 'less' in the eyes of catholics.  If that is the impression that you have been left with, I am sorry becuase it is wrong on those persons parts.  You are basically scene as a member of the 'family' just not this particular 'marriage' and therefore are not on the 'in' when it comes to the family traditions.  Part of being Catholic (larger at times than being personally involved with 'God') is being educated on the rites and practices that make up the community.

It is no different than when I was attending Baptist church and was told that meditation, of any kind other than God/Jesus focused prayer, was not part of the practice of that church.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> IMHO, you are never going to mandate "acceptance".There are probably just as many racist bigots today as there were in the 60's. We didnt make people "accept" other races, we just removed institutionalized practices.


Yes. We cannot mandate acceptance. But we can remove institutionalized discrimination, we can mandate tolerance, we can forbid attacks. Like another controversial topic: abortion. We can't force everybody to accept it, but we can provide access to it, we can forbid people from harrassing women trying to get an abortion and the doctors who provide abortions, we can still have abortion without everyone accepting abortion. We can still have gay marriage without everyone accepting gay marriage, you know?

re: semantics
1) I think UpNorth has a point. Research shows that most people have at least some attraction and/or experience towards both genders (experiementing, people who 'come out' after being married, fatasies, etc). Even if they have never acted on those attractions.
2) Respectfully, I think UpNorth may be hammering on the point a little too hard. There is a spectrum of attraction and of behaviour. But most people would say they lean more to one side than the other - if they don't infact say that they are exclusively binary in their attractions. (And I've discussed this at great length with people who identify themselves at every point on Kinsey's scale).
I will discuss this more in the newer thread.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 20, 2004)

A digression from what others are posting, and some thoughts along the lines of the title of the thread.

There are several things in the past that might have spurred the notion that homosexuality is wrong.

First is the natural revulsion that many heterosexuals will have for the behavior.  This is perfectly normal.  Heterosexuality's drive is towards pro-creation and away from that which doesn't accomplish this.  Revulsion towards same sex interaction has a biological benefit in that it steers sexual energy towards the maintenance of the species.  

Secondly are relgious restrictions based on this natural homo-revulsion.  Prime examples of this are found in the Torah--such as Levitical proscriptions against homosexuality.  The notion of homosexuality's inability to bear children is anathema to ancient Jewish thought.  Heterosexual onanism (withdrawal prior to ejaculation) was a sin and indicative of the level of disgust the Jews had for any sexual behavior that didn't induce pregnancy.

These relgious proscriptions were followed up by New Testament asceticism that denied the pleasures of the flesh.  

Thirdly is the notion that homosexuals are iffeminate and less than manly.  This stereotype is reinforced by openly Gay men who affect this behavior or come to it to some small degree naturally.  Not all Gays do this, of course--to the confusion of many heterosexuals who understand only the stereotype.

Throughout history homosexual behavior has been accepted among certain heterosexual groups.  In Greece pederasty was taken for granted, but homosexuality as an exclusive preference was looked at as odd.  In the American prison system (and prison systems elsewhere) homsexual behavior is practiced as an act of dominance through forced rape and coercion, but most of the participants don't identify themselves as Gay and indeed are not.

It's interesting how large numbers of adolescent males will have homsexual interactions with their peers and then move on to exclusively heterosexual behaviors as a preference.  While there might be a large degree of guilt stemming from these encounters, the participants dismiss they're Gay (and they aren't), yet possibly generate great vitriol for Gays as a means of compensating for their feelings of shame.  For many of these youngsters, like the prison population, the notion of homosexuality as an orientation is abhorrent for the reasons cited above.

The question "when _did _ it become bad" can become "when _does_ it become bad" when looking at these institutional and developmental timelines.  The behavior becomes bad once social pressures to participate in the behavior are removed and heterosexual options are available.  Then there is no excuse for homosexual behavior.  Except one.

The person is Gay.

It seems inconceivable to many here that a developmental glitch (or more than one) exists that could cause a person to be Gay or bi-sexual.  They can accept that identical twins of children with autism will, only 60% of the time, have autism themselves.  The notion of an in-utero stressor that triggers the autism in only one of the monozygotic twins is perfectly acceptable.  The notion of allele penentrance affecting only one of the twins, if they understand what allele penentrance is, is also acceptable.

But they can't accept that identical twins of Gays will be Gay themselves only fifty-two percent of the time.  The notion of stressors affecting sexual development suddenly doesn't wash, and it becomes an issue of morality and choice, rather than biology and natural inclination.  The explanation of allele penetrance leads to vulgar jokes.  More than likely it is ignored in favor of a simplistic grasp of genetics.

Here's some helpful argumentative ammunition for the more tolerant among us here on Martialtalk.  For those that are less tolerant, it might prove to be illumination--should you but point and click.  I would hope you do, for it is fascinating reading.  But for some of you my hope is stretched thin.  For others, less so.


http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2004)

Awesome post, Steve!   :asian:


----------



## The Prof (Dec 20, 2004)

You can really open a can of worms with that question.  I don't think that anyone can say when same gendered relations became wrong.  It's the same with interracial couples.

Society has it's own set of standards that they believe everyone should follow.  I am and have almost always believed that in so many cases society should really mind its own business.

Not everyone likes Pizza, not everyone like Matzoh Ball Soup.  Some guys like gals, some guys like guys or guys and gals.  Same with the ladies.  But the question is who cares, if a person is a good person that is all that should really matter.  Unfortunately we have too many people that are too busy minding everyone elses business.

Live and let live, life is too short.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 20, 2004)

Steve, 

Very well done post, with good links as well!  :asian: 

This is an interesting point for discussion:



> It seems inconceivable to many here that a developmental glitch (or more than one) exists that could cause a person to be Gay or bi-sexual. They can accept that identical twins of children with autism will, only 60% of the time, have autism themselves. The notion of an in-utero stressor that triggers the autism in only one of the monozygotic twins is perfectly acceptable. The notion of allele penentrance affecting only one of the twins, if they understand what allele penentrance is, is also acceptable.



I am baffled by this as well. I think that there is pretty strong evidence to support the possibility that many people are simply born with the biological make-up to be homosexual. 

Yet, what baffles me, is that many people on both sides of the arguement do not want to explore this option. Strong rightwinged Christian extremests don't want to buy this because it takes away the basis that homosexuality is as severe of a sin as they would like to make it. Strong leftwinged gay rights activists don't want to explore this because they believe that "Homosexuality isn't something that should be treated as a correctable anamoly." If homosexuality is proven to be a biological phenomenom in many cases, Christian extremests can't rightfully demonize homosexuals the way that they would like, and gay rights activists don't like the idea that it might be a correctable biological phenomenom.  

It baffles me because I think that studying the theory that homosexuality could be biologically motivated is imperitive to our understanding of homosexuality. Yet, I am searching for understanding rather then an excuse to demonize, glorify, 'correct,' or to simply only accept evidence that fit into my worldview. Hmmm....perhaps I am the 'anamoly' here... :idunno: 

 :supcool:


----------



## Tgace (Dec 20, 2004)

How would a "gay" gene be passed along? It would seem counter to evolutionary theory...a preference for non-reproductive behavior would dead end pretty quick wouldnt it?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> How would a "gay" gene be passed along? It would seem counter to evolutionary theory...a preference for non-reproductive behavior would dead end pretty quick wouldnt it?


Only if it were a single-allele (only one location in the species' entire genetic code), and dominant.

There are a number of traits that we have - and other animals have - that remain in a species 1) just because (we don't know why), 2) because there is no detriment to it, 3) because there is some direct or indirect benefit to it.

Classic example: sickle-cell anemia in populations in Africa. "Why" have this disease that remains strong in the population? The explanation: being heterozygous for this (one parent gives you the gene for sickle-cell, one gives you the normal, non-disease code) allows the individual to better fight off or be unaffected by malaria, a common illness.

So some in the population are unfortunate, and get the two recessive alleles for sickle-cell anemia, and get sick. Some are homozygous for the non-anemia alleles, and are well, but are more prone to catching malaria. The rest - who have one of each - are not anemic, and are resistant to malaria.

Certain genes do not have to benefit every individual who has them - just most of the population.

I'm not saying that if sexual orientation is genetic, it works in this way exactly. Other people (EO Wilson, who I think has some brilliant ideas, and one or two I have issues with) have proposed that homosexuality is adaptive, because having gay folks in your family - i.e., a gay uncle - means that that person won't have kids of his own, but help out the rest of the family with the other kids.

Of course, most genetics underlying behavior is a lot more complex. But it's interesting to think about.

ETA:  I went back and read severl previous posts, including HHJH's, which was very nice, and Tulisan's.

Tulisan - there does seem to be a biological component to homosexualisty.  Whether it completely determines sexuality - whether it is entirely genetically determined (I doubt it; few things are) or some is environmentally induced, as Steve mentioned.

I have noted that ultra right-wing folks prefer to talk about homosexuality as a choice (although, as others previously mentioned, when has any of us who is heterosexual thought of their sexuality - that is, sexual preferece - as a choice?), some gay rights activists also downplay the biological-influence standpoint.  I am a bit baffled about this, but I think there are some reasons.  Possibly they are trying to prevent the biological "screening" or "therapy" for children targeted as "maybe gay".  Or they simply want to own their sexual preferences, and not have others study what is natural to them as "abberrant"  or "developmentally skewed".


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 20, 2004)

Fiesty...Yup, that's what I'm sayin... :ultracool 

An interesting read:

http://www.pflagphoenix.org/education/homosexuality_cause.html

So it doesn't need to be a "gay gene" per say; it could be just a way in which the brain "hard wires" prenatal (or even postnatal during some phase of a childs development). Autism is a good example of this. No one know really "why" children become autistic, and very little is known about "what" autism actually is. But, they have determined that autism occurs in everyones brain during developmental stages, usually before the child begins speaking, but that some childrens brains "hardwire" that way, and the child remains autistic. I am not suggesting that everyone goes through a period of "gayness" like autism, but it is reasonable to suggest that sexual attraction is hardwired in the brain, and that some people just hardwire differently pre- or postnatal.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 21, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> First is the natural revulsion that many heterosexuals will have for the behavior. This is perfectly normal.


I disagree. You know the saying 'no child is born a racist'? I believe this is true. And equally I believe that 'no child is born a homophobe'. Because I grew up in a non-homophobic home and I didn't even know that people felt that way until I got to school and heard cat-calls of "fag" and "lezzie" and "homo". I knew what those words meant, but I didn't know they could be insults.

Infact, I grew up with divorced parents who shared custody. Since before I could remember both my mom and my dad lived in loving relationships with women. I saw how relationships could be good and bad, and I saw no difference between my dad with his wife and my mom with hers. Mom has said I am the least homophobic person she has ever met - including all the gay people she knows. To me there's never been any question about it if it's normal or healthy or whatever. I haven't had to learn to accept anything, excpet the abuse that I would take from other people because of it. To me it's always been obvious.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 21, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I disagree. You know the saying 'no child is born a racist'? I believe this is true. And equally I believe that 'no child is born a homophobe'. Because I grew up in a non-homophobic home and I didn't even know that people felt that way until I got to school and heard cat-calls of "fag" and "lezzie" and "homo". I knew what those words meant, but I didn't know they could be insults.
> 
> .


Much like the social disapproval of incest, some behavioralists have argued that the 'social revulsion' to homosexual tendencies/expressions is a way of encouraging reproductive mating/sexual behavior and is programmed/driven by the biological urge to mate/continue the species.

I don't know much about that, but I have heard this point made.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 21, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> some behavioralists have argued that the 'social revulsion' to homosexual tendencies/expressions is a way of encouraging reproductive mating/sexual behavior and is programmed/driven by the biological urge to mate/continue the species.


And that makes some sense to me, but I don't buy the arguement that it's "perfectly natural" to feel a "revultion" towards homosexuality. No. It isn't.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 21, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> And that makes some sense to me, but I don't buy the arguement that it's "perfectly natural" to feel a "revultion" towards homosexuality. No. It isn't.


I can see where it might be offensive and that it might be something that you disagree with but let me get a little 'upnorth' on you:

I can see it as 'perfectly natural' that a child raised by the Grand Dragon of the KKK would feel revulsion at the sight of a black man kissing a white woman.  NOT that it is purely genetic/natural or that a culture that is intolerant is 'right' but only that based on the 'nature' of the upbringing, that would be an unsurprising reaction.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 21, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I can see it as 'perfectly natural' that a child raised by the Grand Dragon of the KKK would feel revulsion at the sight of a black man kissing a white woman. NOT that it is purely genetic/natural or that a culture that is intolerant is 'right' but only that based on the 'nature' of the upbringing, that would be an unsurprising reaction.


I guess the problem is with the word "natural".
Yes it is 'natural(to be expected)' that someone growing up in a homophobic home and a homophobic society would have homophobic thoughts. Gay people struggle with this in themselves. But it not 'natural' as in a biological imperative. Because guess what, I have no 'revulsion' towards homosexuals or homosexual behaviours etc etc and yet I am still reproducing!


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 21, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I guess the problem is with the word "natural".
> Yes it is 'natural(to be expected)' that someone growing up in a homophobic home and a homophobic society would have homophobic thoughts. Gay people struggle with this in themselves. But it not 'natural' as in a biological imperative. Because guess what, I have no 'revulsion' towards homosexuals or homosexual behaviours etc etc and yet I am still reproducing!


 
THis idea isn't something that is applied to an individual thing it is across the the whole homo sapien thing.

It is sort of like the idea that there are two different colors that a certain fish can be born as.  Red or Blue.  Hypothetically, red is better because it hides the fish better during the day because they blend in with the bright coral AND at night because it isn't as easy to see by night predators.

More blue fish will be eaten and more red fish will survive and breed.

If the majority of homo sapiens 'prefer' heterosexual sex (or at least are willing to engage in it) AND happen to have a natural 'revulsion' (or expession of resistence to a thing) then they will continue to produce children at a higher rate.

There are some studies that, at least in men, that link a high sex drive to 'revulsion' to homosexual behavior.  THerefore they are predisposed to seek, breed and reproduce highly 'hetero' (and therefore homo 'revulsive') offspring...

I don't all the science about it honestly, I caught a few Discovery Channel/Science channel special about this stuff in conjunction to Child development and Social interaction that I thought might help me deal with students/my son.

I am sure there are others that can be more precise with the study/science support for certain theories though.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 21, 2004)

And I can see the 'biological benefit' you describe, how it might help propel people towards heterosexual behaviours. Many gay people I know have only 'come out' after having been married and had kids, and many of them say they knew they were gay previous to ever doing all that, but societal pressures compelled them to try and pursue a "normal(heterosexual)" life. So if the biological 'purpose' of homophobia is to help people go forth and multiply, then it's working. But this is a _social_ pressure, not an inherent biological one. (And it's all conjecture anyways. Although the arguement makes sense, show me ONE shred of emperical evidence that there is a biological reason for homophobic thoughts or behaviours.)


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 21, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> But this is a _social_ pressure, not an inherent biological one. (And it's all conjecture anyways. Although the arguement makes sense, show me ONE shred of emperical evidence that there is a biological reason for homophobic thoughts or behaviours.)


And one of the things that contributes to what is acceptable and unacceptable in social settings is biology.  It is not the only factor but it is one of them.

All I can do is draw parallels.  It seems that this idea is a personal hot button for you so I won't push it any further but I have already stressed that I am working from Secondary/tirciary data...I don't think that any one here can really work from Empirical evidence on this particular point since Empirical means that you did the research, did the tests and recorded the results.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 21, 2004)

I don't mean to say there couldn't be biological components to the causes of behaviours, but I think it's more complicated than that. And with the conjecture comment, I meant that even when there are studies that show correlation (show that the two things happen at the same time) they don't show CAUSEation. Hypothesizing about the CAUSE is just that - hypothesizing.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 21, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I don't mean to say there couldn't be biological components to the causes of behaviours, but I think it's more complicated than that. And with the conjecture comment, I meant that even when there are studies that show correlation (show that the two things happen at the same time) they don't show CAUSEation. Hypothesizing about the CAUSE is just that - hypothesizing.


which is different from the rest of this thread or any info being contributed how?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 21, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I can see it as 'perfectly natural' that a child raised by the Grand Dragon of the KKK would feel revulsion at the sight of a black man kissing a white woman.  NOT that it is purely genetic/natural or that a culture that is intolerant is 'right' but only that based on the 'nature' of the upbringing, that would be an unsurprising reaction.



Your choice of the word "natural" is colloquial, rather than scientific; the discussion would be furthered if you instead used the term "nurtured" (which, in fact, the hatred of blacks kissing whites in a child of a Grand Dragon of the KKK has been), which would I think clarify the entire dispute.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 21, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Your choice of the word "natural" is colloquial, rather than scientific; the discussion would be furthered if you instead used the term "nurtured" (which, in fact, the hatred of blacks kissing whites in a child of a Grand Dragon of the KKK has been), which would I think clarify the entire dispute.


I did preface the contextual (not colloquial because I was not intending to be 'informal' in my use) use of 'natural' to further the discussion when I wrote it.  

There is, though it isn't a popular to discuss, science that supports the idea that 'nature/scientifically applied' based fear of 'different' is a partial contributor to racism/prejudice in the form of ethnocentrism.  On a small scale it is 'my family/my tribe' all the way up to 'my nation/people/race/creed.....'

Actually, that point was brought up by UpNorth a long time ago if I remember correctly as a inhibitor to the development of a 'global community.'


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 12, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I disagree. You know the saying 'no child is born a racist'? I believe this is true. And equally I believe that 'no child is born a homophobe'.



Unfortunately, your beliefs are not supported by science.

What little research has been done into this subject has demonstrated that children demonstrate an intrinsic revulsion or dislike of that which is "other". Meaning, the first time a child raised in a predominantly white community sees a black person --- he will think they are weird, strange, or "wrong".

Unless a child has been raised to view others of different racial backgrounds, religions, sexual preferences, or whatnot as being "okay" or part of "us", there will be the revulsion that was spoken of.

ALL humans will be racists and homophones, unless taught otherwise. And it is _is_ natural, in the sense of inherited, primitive instincts. Rationality and compassion are not very 'natural'. They are uniquely learned human behaviors.

The notion that "no child is born a racist" is part of the illusory psychology developed by the emerging liberalism of the 18th and 19th century. It predominantly takes the form of the "blank slate" of human development, as well as the notions of the "noble savage" and the "noble chimp" (which Jane Goodall debunked).

None of this 19th century philosophy, of course, is actually supported by scientific research. And, in its extreme, justifies the use of brainwashing as a means of establishing a utopia.

Laterz.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> What little research has been done into this subject has demonstrated that children demonstrate an intrinsic revulsion or dislike of that which is "other". Meaning, the first time a child raised in a predominantly white community sees a black person --- he will think they are weird, strange, or "wrong".


 But they are not inherently, intrinsicly, genetically BORN that way. Because if that SAME child was brought up in a predominantly black community, they would not have that reaction towards blacks. If gay people were able to be openly incorporated into the community, that "otherness" you speak of would greatly reduce. The secrecy that many pay people live in contributes to that perception of the "otherness". Because there are many people who claim "I don't know anyone who's gay" and that is rarely true.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 12, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> But they are not inherently, intrinsicly, genetically BORN that way.



Y'know, its funny.... I don't recall saying anything about "genetics".



			
				raedyn said:
			
		

> Because if that SAME child was brought up in a predominantly black community, they would not have that reaction towards blacks.



Oh, really??

It depends on a lot of factors, including said child's treatment by the community as a whole during his/her upbringing.

But, the point remains --- unless one is taught to NOT be racist, to NOT be sexist, to NOT be homophobic, then that is exactly what one will be. The very process of integration into a racially diverse community is part of that "teaching to not be a racist" procedure. Rest assured, though, that that racially-integrated child will still find someone else to project as "other" --- to whom he/she will then proceed to vilify, demonize, and sometimes "hate".

This, of course, is all part of the liberal fantasy of the "natural goodness" or "hidden beach" of humanity. The idea is that the only possible reason that someone could be malevolent, spiteful, racist, homophobic, or mysoginistic is because some mean ol' person (or, as is usually the target, "society") put those mean ol' ideas into his/her head. The idea is that if you strip away all of that nasty socialization and "culture", get down to the root of the person, all you find is the yummy, benevolent center --- the "hidden beach" underneath the pavement.

This also has to do with the notion that one can create a utopian society simply be erecting external, societal changes --- since, the only reason society is not utopian is because of external (not internal) conditions. This is fundamental to liberal philosophy, along with the "blank slate" (there are no internal, inherited inclinations within people), "the noble savage" (take away social indoctrination and everybody becomes a Buddha), and a string of other un-scientific, nonsensical ideas.

My personal take that all of this is the result of a very factured, partial take on human "nature" and psychology.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 13, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It depends on a lot of factors, including said child's treatment by the community as a whole during his/her upbringing.


 Then that's still about 'teaching' the child. If it's their upbringing that determines it. Do you see what I'm saying?

You seem to be grouping my experiences and my understanding of the psychology reasearch I am familiar with as some sort of 'fantasy world'. I'm not so naieve as to think that all human behaviour is a direct result of your childhood or somesuchthing. But you even admit while arguing that children are going to feel revulsion to 'otherness' that if they develop that revulsion or not partially depends on their upbringing & environment. And of course it does. A good part of why I have no 'revulsion' towards gay people is that I was brought up 1/2 in the gay community, and 1/2 in a straight community that was gay-positive. I was exposed to gay people enough that they were not particularly 'other' and I was encouraged by the straight people around me to look upon them positively. My step-brother (through the gay parent) has been brought up 1/2 in a gay home and 1/2 in a straight home that has gone out of it's way to teach anti-gay things and that this gay parent is bad. He has a lot of negativity towards gay people (or maybe he's just 14 and rebelling *shurg*).

I'm not trying to argue that the research you speak of must be wrong. But I'm saying it's important that it's used in context. Just because a person might initally show resistance to something that's new, that doesn't mean it's OKay to avoid it and 'hate' it. If your infant spits out carrots the first time they taste them, you don't immediately accept that they don't ever have to eat carrots and it's okay to hate carrots, because they haven't given carrots a chance and most (but of course not all) kids will get over their original resistance to carrots, and often end up liking carrots. You're right, we can help teach our kids to accept and maybe _like_ carrots errr... minorities.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jan 15, 2005)

I dont think its wrong, I just feel that they have a little bit of mental issues. I mean come on, its just not natural. But, as long as they are not hurting anyone, I guess there isnt a whole lot wrong with it. I still say there are severe mental issues with homosexuals and they need help dearly. I have nothing against them, I just personally find it disturbing.


----------



## Bester (Jan 16, 2005)

If it wasn't natural, then there would be no 'gay' animals.
There are.

Let us look at 'gay' activities.
Gays hug.
So do straights.

Gays kiss.
So do straights.

Gays fondle.
So do straights.

Gay women, perform cuninglingus.
Aint nothing wrong when we guys do that to the ladies, it there?

Gay men perform felatio.
Aint nothings wrong when the ladies do that to us, right?

All that "fun" stuff above feels real good don't it?  Thats why we do it right?

But, "Gays" can't have kids.
Neither can numerous "straight" couples.

"But those guys do each other in the butt"
Watch any porn lately?  Seems nailing some chick in the backdoor is the popular rage today.  If it's ok for the ladies to take it, then gee whiz guys, must be ok for you to take it too.

"Its against the Bible"
So what?  That is ONE faith, on a planet containing THOUSANDS of faiths. 
Many of which have no problem against it.

Sex, the pleasure we get from it, the build up, the act, the afterglow.  All that IS! natural.

If it wasn't, then we wouldn't feel those sensations, or want it so bad!

The RESTRICTIONS! on same-gender relations is what is so unnatural.

"If it feels good, do it!"
Stop, you "Sinner"!



Unnatural sex is stuff outside of species, with belt sanders, or when you grab the jumper cables.  
Unnatural sex is when they catch you masterbating in a dung pile, covered in feces.
Unnatural sex is when they catch you with Aunt Fritas cadaver, spade marks still fresh.
What Michael Jackson did to his face, that was Unnatural.
Anna Nicoles tits, those are unnatural.

But homosexuality is as natural as hetrosexuality.

There is nothing unnatural about loving another willing living person, and sharing pleasure and emotion with them.

Personally, I'm not attracted to men. Women yes, men no.  If the right guy came along, who knows.  VERY distant chance (hey, offer me a billion bucks, you never know). But there is nothing unnatural about the attraction. If it truely was unnatural, then there would be alot less gay and bi individuals.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 16, 2005)

Dude, your avatar has a guy standing there fully...flexed...in a tank top, trying to look like Jean-Claude Van Damme, (whose first film, "Amsterdam," was soft-core gay porn), and you're worried about the unnaturalness of gay people?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 16, 2005)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> I dont think its wrong, I just feel that they have a little bit of mental issues. I mean come on, its just not natural. But, as long as they are not hurting anyone, I guess there isnt a whole lot wrong with it. I still say there are severe mental issues with homosexuals and they need help dearly. I have nothing against them, I just personally find it disturbing.




There is a growing body of research indicating that homosexual behavior is a developmental issue, DeLamar.  If the formation of the hypothalamus of the brain isn't natural, what would you suggest it is?  

Consider this:

In 1957 Karen Hooker conducted a study on homosexuals and heterosexuals wherein she determined that there was no socially deterministic factors regarding the development of homosexuality.  She found zero correlation.  Zero.  Nada.  Zilch.  

In 1990 D.F. Schwab conducted a study where he found anatomical differences between the gay male brain and the straight male brain.  The suprachiasmatic nucleus in the hypothalamus of gay males was twice the size of that of straight males.  (Say THAT five times real fast)

That same year researcher Laura Anderson found other differences.  She found the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals. 

Simon LeVay did postmortems on a number of different males and found that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was two to three times smaller in gay men then in straight men.

The American Psychological Association (APA) removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders in 1973, publically stated it was not a mental disorder in 1975, and in 1994 stated "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity.  It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality."

Note that _every male on this forum _ would have been born female if it had not been for the influence of androgens on their development as a fetus during their mother's pregnancy.  Among females testosterone levels can vary by a factor of 100.  Note too that certain medications taken during pregnancy mimic the effects of testerone.  I'll let you take all that in and jump to a speculative moment.

In a Stanford study female rats exposed to large doses of androgens during their early development showed male behavior and tried to mount other females.  They were also aggressive.  The flip side was also true with male rats underexposed to androgens during their early development.  They became passive and allowed males to mount them.  No report was mentioned whether straight rats bashed the gay rats.

A similar study was done at Cornell with birds.  Female birds injected with testosterone began to sing like male birds.  Fans of Tracy Chapman take note.

Studies of monogyzotic (identical) twins also strongly support the developmental theory, just as they support the suggestion that there are developmental causes of autism and schizophrenia.  


http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Bodian2.html


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Note too that certain medications taken during pregnancy mimic the effects of testerone.  I'll let you take all that in and jump to a speculative moment.



Great post, Steve.  This research is important for everyone to read.  This quote struck me (in a speculative moment).  It has some pretty staggering implications I think.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jan 16, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> If it wasn't natural, then there would be no 'gay' animals.
> There are.
> 
> Let us look at 'gay' activities.
> ...



I just can not imagine being with another man sexually, I have no attraction to men AT ALL. I love my best friend and all my other guy friends, but never , ever, have I felt sexually attracted to them. I had a buddy who I am very close with, and alot of people think he is gay, and you know, alot of things point to the fact. He seems like the in the closet kind of one, but I still love him, and he will always be my bud, even if he is gay.
I dont have a problem with gays personally, I just find it very wierd for a man to want a man. I would never disrespect a gay person because they were gay, I would be there friend no matter what. I do have to say I would feel wierd if I had to bend over or something in front of them, I would think they might be checking me out or something. But I still wouldnt make that apparent out of respect, and to not make them feel Im judging them. 
I think they need mental help, I think there is a sexual problem metally for them. Men were made to be with women, and women with men.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jan 16, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Dude, your avatar has a guy standing there fully...flexed...in a tank top, trying to look like Jean-Claude Van Damme, (whose first film, "Amsterdam," was soft-core gay porn), and you're worried about the unnaturalness of gay people?


 :lol:  I did not know that! But I still like Van Damme anyway, even if he is a little gay, he is still an enjoyable actor to watch, and I would love meet him. And if he was gay, I would have nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2005)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Men were made to be with women, and women with men.



Then how come men _can _ have sex with men and women _can _ have sex with women?

I bet it even feels pretty _natural _ when they are doing it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 16, 2005)

Thanks, Upnorth.

Apparently the U.S. Air Force agrees that sexual behavior is plastic and can be induced chemically.  They considered making a weapon that would have caused homosexual behavior in enemy forces:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=101&e=15&u=/po/airforceproposalsoughtgaysexweapon

Now THAT is interesting.  A "gay bomb."  

I think we should "gay bomb" Congress, just to see what happens.  This assuming, of course, that the effects were temporary and done only for the purpose of illuminating the minds of our leaders.  

Do you think John Kerry would make Trent Lott his *****?  If we "gay bombed" the White House, who do you think would be pitching versus catching?  George Bush or Karl Rove?  And what of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz?  Ugly visuals, all.

But I digress.

Other studies of the etiology of sexual preference show that the ratio of index finger length to ring finger length is different between heterosexual women and lesbians.  In men the index finger is typically shorter than the ring finger.  In hetero women the ring finger is as long or shorter than the index finger.  Lesbian women's fingers tend to be like that of a heterosexual male.

Now...how many of you (in a moment of panic) looked at your hands?



http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/29/gay.fingers/

The abstract:  

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...al/v404/n6777/abs/404455a0_r.html&dynoptions=

Researcher's web site:

http://www.marcbreedlove.com/


And an interesting article on Simon LeVay, one of the researchers previously cited. This article was originally printed in _Discover_ magazine, I believe.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human Nature S 1999/sex_and_the_brain_by_david_nimmo.htm


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 16, 2005)

Well if I understod the second link correctly, it would appear that I may be gay (big surprise to me...) since I have quite obviously been exposed to very high male hormone levels judging by the fact that my ring fingers are roughly a knuckle longer than my index fingers on both hands...

Either that or I am just "hypermasculinised"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 16, 2005)

What they Fear.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 16, 2005)

Gay/bisexual military men throughout history:

Socrates (yes, he WAS a soldier).

Alexander the Great.

Hadrian, emperor of Rome.

Richard the Lionhearted.

Frederick the Great.

Baron VonSteuben

Lord Byron (bi-sexual).

T.E. Lawrence, aka, "Lawrence of Arabia".

Tyron Power (served in the Marines in WWII).


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 16, 2005)

-This thread has been an interesting read; many good points have been made. My personal stance in life concerning gays/lesbians/bis is one of indifference. It is a label, not indicating the true worth of the individual as a human being. As I've said earlier, take away the labels, and all we're left with is being human. I have many friends and some family members who are my friends and family members. Are they good people? I'll judge them by their words and actions, not the way they express their sexuality. I won't judge how they love another person, or why. Would I want them to judge me in the same way? Being who they are has never been a detriment in my enjoyment of life. The people who hate and bash, however, have done nothing but disgust me. I do believe they are entitled to their opinion, but is beating a person who is "gay" an acceptable expression of that opinion. Is enacting laws to limit the freedoms the rest of Americans enjoy an acceptable expression?

-What exactly are these kind of people trying to protect? A certain way of life? Two gay guys getting married in California is not going to have an impact on me in western New York. Do they love eachother and plan on being productive members of society? That is my concern, my desire for all people. Maybe its about procreation...well, I think the species homo sapiens, barring any unforseen disaster, is doing quite well in this deparment. What's the world's current population? 6.2 Billion? The human race certainly isn't dying off. Maybe its for religious concerns. Christians seem to need to procreate in regards to their faith, and thats fine, cause what greater wonder is there in the world that having and raising a child? But is it to create more Christians? Maybe for some individuals or groups they would prefer only Christians to populate the planet.

-I not picking on Christians here, for I was raised as one, and know it to be a good faith for many. I also recognize it as another label. Why is there this need to control others, not just in this situation, but in many across the country? There are more important things to worry about in life.


A---)


----------



## Bester (Jan 16, 2005)

Ok, so, whose up for the group hug?

Hey, whoevers hands on my butt better be a good kisser!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 16, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> Ok, so, whose up for the group hug?
> 
> Hey, whoevers hands on my butt better be a good kisser!




Hey, keep up that suggestive tone and you'll have some of us typing one handed.


BTW...my apologies.  The above list ought read "Tyrone Power,"  and not "Tyrone."  I lost the "e" somewheree.

Oh.  There it is.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 16, 2005)

Perhaps we should start a club called, "Friends of PeeWee..." also included would be Roy Cohn, J. Edgar Hoover, that guy who was the First Bush's campaign chairman, Bob Bauman, Siegfried and Roy (face up to it...heh, heh), Liberace (deal with it), Shakespeare, Walt Whitman, the first Forbes (of Forbes' Fortune 500?), and anybody who ever went to Scout camp...

Meanwhile, I'm sticking' with the formation of modern subjectivity in the English Renaissance...not incidentally, also where we got a lot our our contemporary wacky notions about women...read about the Pop-Out penis...which appeared when good young ladies exercised excessively and began to perspire...read about the Female Thermometer...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 16, 2005)

Nah.  Gotta disagree with the notion that "The Bard" was Gay.  My very Gay Shakespeare prof in grad school didn't think so...and this guy knew Shakespeare awfully well.  

But Liberace, yes.  Jim Nabors, Rock Hudson...oh, heck...I'll let fly with a fairly large list.  Some of these are debateable.  A more accuate list is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people

Sappho (600 B.C.) Greek Poetess 
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) Greek Teacher and Philosopher 
Plato (427-347 B.C.) Greek Teacher and Philosopher 
Alexander The Great (356-323 B.C.) Macedonian King and Military Leader 
Wu (140-87 B.C.) Chinese Emperor 
Hadrian (76-138 A.D.) Roman Emperor 
Richard the Lion Hearted (1157-1199) English King and Crusader 
Edward II (1254-1327) English King 
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) Italian Renaissance Artist, Teacher, Scientist and Inventor 
Michelangelo (1475-1564) Italian Renaissance Artist and Sculptor 
Montezuma II (1480-1520) Aztec Emperor 
Julius III (1487-1555) Catholic Pope 
Ieyasu Tokugawa (1542-1616) Japanese Shogun and founder of the Edo Shogunate 
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) British Statesman and Writer 
Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593) English dramatist and poet 
Christina (1626-1689) Swedish Queen 
Peter the Great (1672-1725) Russian Czar 
Frederick the Great (1712-1786) Prussian King and Military Leader 
Madame de Stael (1766-1817) French Writer and Intellectual 
Lord Byron (1788-1824) British Poet 
Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875) Danish Poet and Writer 
Margaret Fuller (1810-1850) American Writer and Journalist 
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) American Philosopher, Naturalist, and Peace Activist 
Walt Whitman (1819-1892) American Poet 
Herman Melville (1819-1891) American Writer 
Chief Crazy Horse (Tashunca witco) (1849-1877) Oglala Sioux Chief 
Peter I. Tchaikovsky (1840-1893) Russian Composer 
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Irish Writer and Dramatist 
Dame Ethel Smyth (1858-1944) British Composer, Writer, and Activist 
Marcel Proust (1871-1922) French Writer 
Sergei Diaghileff (1872-1929) Russian Ballet Impresario 
Vita Sackville-West (1892-1962) British Writer 
Vaslav Nijinsky (1890-1950) Russian Ballet Dancer 
Edward Carpenter (1844-1929) British Author and Gay Rights Pioneer 
Willa Cather (1873-1947) American Writer and Critic 
Colette (1873-1954) French Writer and Actress 
W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) British Writer and Dramatist 
Alice B. Toklas (1877-1967) American Writer; Stein's Domestic Partner 
Gertrude Stein (1874-1946) American Writer and Art Collector; Toklas' Domestic Partner 
Bessie Smith (1894-1937) African-American Blues Singer and Entertainer 
E.M. Forster (1879-1970) British Writer 
Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) British Writer and Publisher 
Ernst Rohm (1887-1933) German Nazi and SA Leader 
T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) (1888-1935) British Soldier 
Jean Cocteau (1889-1963) French Writer and Filmmaker 
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) British Economist and Nobel Prize Winner 
Cole Porter (1893-1964) American Composer 
Bayard Rustin (1910-87) African-American Civil Rights, Labor Rights, & Peace Activist/Leader 
Alan Turing (1912-1954) British Mathematician and Computer Scientist 
James Baldwin (1924-1987) African-American Writer and Civil Rights Activist 
Truman Capote (1924-1984) American Author 
Tennessee Williams (1914-1983) American Dramatist 
Marguerite Yourcenar (1903-1987) Belgian-American Writer 
Federico Garcia Lorca (1894-1936) Spanish Poet and Dramatist 
Christopher Isherwood (1904-1986) British Author 
W.H. Auden (1907-1973) British Poet and Writer 
Harvey Milk (1930-1978) American Politician 
Audre Lorde (1934-1992) African-American Writer and Activist 
Billie Jean King (1943 - ) American Tennis Champion and Activist 
Martina Navratilova (1956- ) Czechoslovakian-American Tennis Champion and Activist 
Andy Warhol (1930-1987) American Pop Artist 
Frieda Kahlo (1907-1954) Mexican Artist and Activist 
Gore Vidal (1925- ) American Writer 
Rudolf Nureyev (1938-1993) Russian dancer 
Freddie Mercury (1946-1991) British Singer/songwriter/musician 
Elton John (1947 - ) British Singer/songwriter/musican 
Janis Ian (1951 - ) American Singer/songwriter/musician 
Nathan Lane (1956 - ) American Actor 
Ellen Degeneres (1958 - ) American Comedian/actor 
Melissa Etheridge (1961 - ) American Singer/songwriter/musician 
k. d. lang (1961 - ) Canadian Singer/songwriter 

Gee.  Who woulda thunk it?  Freddy Mercury?   Gay?

Life is full of surprises.  

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 16, 2005)

-Freddy Mercury was a musical god. Queen still has some of the best music ever. It was a sad day to learn about his passing. So what if he was gay? Does that stop a lot of people singing We Are The Champions or We Will Rock You at sports arenas? Its a shame he isn't here now, I think he would have broken down more barriers and stereotypes.


A---)


----------



## Floating Egg (Jan 17, 2005)

There seems to be three perspectives regarding homosexuality. I will briefly address each below.

1. Religion: The issue of morality within the context of religion is the most widespread perspective. Since I don't believe in God and I am not a theist, I feel no need to discuss this issue on a believers terms.

2. Personal Revulsion: History has shown us that this is more or less a result of social learning, and I believe it to be tied to religious beliefs in many cases. What I've found is that after peeling away the layers most people who find homosexuality disgusting are often making moral judgments, which is more often than not tied to their religious upbringing, even if they're not aware of it. 


3. Unnatural: This is based on the idea that homosexuality is not natural. This interests me the most out of the three perspectives because it isn't necessarily tied to religion or personal revulsion. To ensure that I'm on the same page as the majority regarding the definition of natural, I pulled up the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. I'm just going to grab the first two definitions for the purposes of this post. 


Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin naturalis of nature, from natura nature

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>

2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature 


What I want to look at here is the desire to connect what happens in nature with what is correct in human behavior. The problem with using nature as a basis of moral judgment is that human beings constantly diverge from instinctual behavior, so in this regard, coming up with reasons to justify or attack homosexuality within the context of the so-called natural world is a pointless endeavor.

Even if we were to judge human behavior based on what is found in nature, the existence of homosexuality in other species would suggest that it is natural. So, where does an Atheist go if he or she can't turn to a moral argument based on nature? The only place left is the issue of majority. Since homosexuality has always been a minority within a given population, it must be wrong, right? Please don't answer that.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 17, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> Well if I understod the second link correctly, it would appear that I may be gay (big surprise to me...) since I have quite obviously been exposed to very high male hormone levels judging by the fact that my ring fingers are roughly a knuckle longer than my index fingers on both hands...
> 
> Either that or I am just "hypermasculinised"




No.  The finger length ratios apply to women, not men.  Lesbians have ratios similar to men.  Straight women typically do not.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 18, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Then that's still about 'teaching' the child. If it's their upbringing that determines it. Do you see what I'm saying?
> 
> You seem to be grouping my experiences and my understanding of the psychology reasearch I am familiar with as some sort of 'fantasy world'.



No, I think the whole 'nature/nurture' debate is a whole lotta hooey. Epigenesis is, like, soo much more vogue these days.

And, yes, the fundamental basis of your beliefs are determined from philosophical constructs that date to the 1700's. They are not supported by good science.

And, yes, the data indicates children are born with inherent dislike of "others". Hell, a newborn infant can't even imagine "others" to begin with. Pure narcissism and all that.

The simple truth is that the subject is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be, and no retreating into disproved "blank slates" (which is what this ultimately all relies on) is going to change that.


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 18, 2005)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> I do have to say I would feel wierd if I had to bend over or something in front of them, I would think they might be checking me out or something. But I still wouldnt make that apparent out of respect, and to not make them feel Im judging them.



It is a common misconception that a gay person will check out everyone of the same gender.  Straight people aren't attracted to every person of the opposite sex, and gay people are just as discriminating.  A gay man isn't going to check you out simply because you have XY chromosomes, the same way a woman won't check you out just because you're a male.  

On a similar topic, it's also a common misconception that a gay person will be attracted to children of the same gender.  In reality, research indicates that most pedophiles are straight.  Straight people aren't generally attracted to children of the opposite sex, and gay people aren't generally attracted to children of the same sex, and find the idea just as repulsive as most straight people do.  An attraction to adults of either gender is far different from an attraction to children.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 18, 2005)

*I just can not imagine being with another man sexually, I have no attraction to men AT ALL. * 

Then don't worry about it.  I don't either...and after defending Gay rights for over a year on this forum I believe that's the first time I've ever said it.  I never felt the need to.

*I love my best friend and all my other guy friends, but never , ever, have I felt sexually attracted to them...I dont have a problem with gays personally, I just find it very wierd for a man to want a man. *

Bingo.  So consider for a moment that you're "hardwired" in your brain to be attracted to women, and Gay men are "hardwired" in their brain like  women to be attracted to men.  The research supports that.  It isn't at all inconceivable according to developmental biology.

*I do have to say I would feel wierd if I had to bend over or something in front of them, I would think they might be checking me out or something.* 

Not unless you have a nice butt, I would think.  If they're checking you out, don't worry about it.  If they hit on you, decline politely. If they're overly pushy, be assertive.  Note that many of the women on this board do this very thing when propositioned by a straight male.


*But I still wouldnt make that apparent out of respect, and to not make them feel Im judging them. * 

But you are indeed judging them.  


*I think they need mental help, I think there is a sexual problem metally for them. * 


WHO will provide them the mental help you advocate?


Here's the American Medical Association's comments on therapy:

[The AMA]..."opposes, the use of "reparative" or "conversion" therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation."

The American Academy of Pediatrics:

"Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it _can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation." _ [Policy Statement: Homosexuality and Adolescence, American Academy of Pediatrics, 1993.]

From the American Psychiatric Association:

"The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone 'reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed." [Position Statement: Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation, American Psychiatric Association, 1998.]

From the American Counseling Association:

[The ACA]..."opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation." [Resolution adopted by American Counseling Association Governing Council, March 1998.] 

Further, at its 1999 World Conference, ACA adopted a position opposing the promotion of "reparative therapy" as a "cure" for individuals who are homosexual. [Action by American Counseling Association Governing Council, April 1999.]

From the National Association of Social Workers:

"NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so." [Policy Statement: Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues. Approved by Delegate Assembly, August 1996. Social Work Speaks, 4th ed., NASW, 1997]


I posted the American Psychological Association's official statement earlier.




*Men were made to be with women, and women with men.*


Not always.



Regards,


Steve


http://www.clgs.org/5/5_6.html


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 18, 2005)

I can't believe this, but in researching the above I came across a Seventh Day Adventist site that mentions all of the above professional institutions and their stances; accordingly--and amazingly--rejects the disease model and accepts homosexuality as a natural condition.

They still advocate celibacy for homosexuals, but state:
_
Among homosexual oriented people motivated to "change," these "ex-gay" change programs may be successful in changing sexual behavior, but do not succeed in changing sexual orientation._

http://www.sdakinship.org/anotherpov/11.htm

This stunned me.  They opened their minds...just a teensy bit.  This is no small victory.

Ooops...just checked it again.  Its a support site for SDA's who are Gay.  Sorry.

Heck of a lot of reference material on the site, though.


Regards,



Steve


----------



## TCA (Jan 23, 2005)

Anyone ever here of Saddam and Gamore?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 23, 2005)

TCA said:
			
		

> Anyone ever here of Saddam and Gamore?




Saddam?  Yes.  

Former president of the Republic of Iraq, captured by elements of the 4th infantry division subsequent to the invasion of his country by the United States.  

Gamore?  No.



Regards,



Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 25, 2005)

:rofl:

I think he was refering to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Sidebar: I don't know how accurate this is, but it was an interesting read on the 5 cities supposedly flattened by God : http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
and another, which seems on first glance to come to different findings:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/sodom.html

I've heard that the cities had been found, and that evidence was there that they had been 'nuked', but can't locate the source at the moment. Ah, found 1.  It's down a ways.  Careful you don't get kidnapped by aliens while reading...LOL
http://www.ufoarea.com/aas_childress_atomic2.html


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 25, 2005)

*I think he was refering to Sodom and Gomorrah.*

Ah, yes.

Mythical Biblical Mesopotamian cities ruled by Kings Bera and Birsha, respectively.  They were two of the four cities God destroyed, along with Admah and Zeboiim (Deuteronomy 29:23), sparing the city of Zoar, in which Lot took refuge.

Charles Pellegrino in his book "Return to Sodom and Gomorrah," writes about how archeologists found an ancient Mesopotamian town that had been burned in an intense congflagration.  Their theory:  Oil fires.  The site was geologically active insofar as oil deposits (reference the tar pits the Sodomites and their allies got stuck in during a battle), and they speculated that the town was reduced when oil/gas deposits rose to the surface and ignited, wrecking everybody's week.

They had to abandon the site in '91 with the beginning of the Gulf War.  No word on whether they've gone back.  I suspect not.


Regards,


Steve


----------

