posted
I have heard my relatives say things like that more than 50 times. It's not really a strawman. Just look at some of these pages. Read between the lines of them. Like this. Half of that is lies and half truths... Why do I do this to myself? >.<
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I didn't know people go crazy without orgasms. Why is that?
This is a distinctively *male* problem. A weakness if you will. One that women do not suffer from.
"Go crazy" might be a bit much. It seems to cause stress on males to go without that release, seeing as they are constantly making spermies 'n' all.
I personally think that the media's message that all males must think about sex all the time and cannot control their desires does more harm than a church telling people to practice chastity. Not to mention providing plenty of fodder to increase the appetite for sex while lowering self-control. I think the young males growing up in this world barraged by sex have no idea that it is possible to be otherwise. That is bad, IMO. The young men who grow up being taught to control their thoughts may struggle with it, but they do seem to make great progress over their peers who don't try at all.
Granted, grown males *tend* to think about sex all the time, especially in their teens, but it seems to me that the more they focus on it the more likely they are to think about it. It is possible to put at least some of that energy into focusing on other pursuits and therefore think about it less than they otherwise would have.
But seeing as I am decidedly *not* male, I welcome the input of those who know better.
On the subject of homosexual sex, there is a bridge that members of the opposite sex must overcome in order to please each other sexually. There isn't such a bridge between members of the same sex. Women do not have the direct drive for orgasm that men have. They can both enjoy a very satisfying and fulfilling session of "cuddling" with no need to end in climax. This leaves men befuddled--waiting for the other shoe to drop. Men understand men's need for sex for physical reasons, and lots of it. If it weren't for the fact that most people are strongly attracted to the opposite sex, homosexual sex is more convenient and easy.
Whether you think this is a good thing to perpetuate in society or not depends on how you look at things. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, for some women that isn't exactly the case... I would not know, being that I am still out somewhere running around with unicorns but, I reckon there are a lot of hurdles folks have to go through when it comes to sex no matter what... *thinks of reading Stone Butch Blues again sometime*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, there are always going to be people who are irrational in their hatred of homosexuality. They are not likely to change their way of thinking either. But how many people are so extreme? Certainly some are, the most vocal to be sure. It seems your family is, and for that I am sorry.
You want to know reasons behind the church being against it. I have discussed this in depth before. They are not things that can be proven by science, they are doctrines of faith. But they make sense and are logical. If'n you want, I am happy to explain them again. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, I agree that when women are newly in a relationship and sex is new, it will be more appealing. And women *do* have a sex drive. And it *can* be strong. I know, because I had a definite strong sex drive as far back as I can remember.
But the fact is, the physiological *need* for orgasm is not there. Benefits a plenty, something to be desired and longed for, but not a need in the same way.
Women don't need orgasm like they need to eat food or go pee. Men do. The fact is, if men aren't having sex or masterbating, they release in their sleep. It has to happen. That just isn't the case with women.
quote: I didn't know people go crazy without orgasms. Why is that?
This is a distinctively *male* problem. A weakness if you will. One that women do not suffer from. [Wink]
It is impossible for a normal, healthy male to go a long period of time without an orgasm. If he goes too long, his body takes care of it in his sleep.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have heard my relatives say things like that more than 50 times. It's not really a strawman. Just look at some of these pages. Read between the lines of them.
But how many times do you see it said here? You keep hammering on this over and over in this forum, but nobody is disagreeing with on that specific point. It's your conclusions that I disagree with.
posted
RArely. Here people are rather civil with a few exceptions. A small handful of exceptions Maybe only two. But sometimes, I feel like people dismissing it as a sin leads to that sort of thing.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think ignorance and a desire to feel superior leads to that sort of thing. Calling it a sin is just a convenient excuse those people use. I don't lay the fault at the foot of the doctrine--assuming it is taught compassionately--but at the foot of evil in individuals.
Hatrack is a great place for people to come to learn understanding and compassion. There are some who don't want to listen, though, and they rarely stick around here.
Who knows, if those people are going to listen to anyone, maybe they will listen to those who hold a similar belief, yet hold it compassionately without hatred. Dagonee comes to mind as a perfect example of this.
posted
The Bible DOES say it's a sin. In fact, it says a lot of things. It says that if I have sex with my aunt, we both have to die childless. It says if I misbehave too much, my parents can take me to the city walls and stone me (I'm just trying to think if Hickory has any city walls. Maybe that "Welcome to Hickory" sign?). Did you know that Joe Nameth sined every time he touched the superbowl ball? Heck, up until they stopped using actual pigskin for the pigskins, the entire sport of American Footbal was sinful. And don't get me started on the fashion would! Do you realize how many times those models wear clothes made of two different types of thread? It's disgraceful!
The fact is that all that is a part of the Old Law. As Jesus himself said, we are no longer under the old law, and everything in the new testament that supposedly says anything about homosexuality can be traced to basic mistranslations, and I'm pretty sure Paul is the only one who said anything about it. Personally I take everything Paul says with a grain of salt. But that's just me.
Anyway, the mistranslation is something along these lines: The word that has been translated into homosexuals is actually a greek word whose first known use is by Paul (he probably invented it for the situation) and is not the traditional word for homosexuals. It is actually directly translated as meaning "men who practice unnatural acts." So for all we know, Paul is condenming homosexuals for having sex with women (as it is unnatural for them) and heterosexuals for having sex with men. We don't really know. It makes perfect sense to me.
Another big misconception about the Bible is the sin of Sodom and Gomorah. The sins actually described by the Bible aren't neccissarily the sins we now associate with the former's name. It includes lust, murder, theft, sacralige, rape, and the attempted rape of the angels. It is not specifically condemning homosexuality in and of itself.
And on the subject of civil unions instead of marriage. This reaks of seperate but equal. I don't care what the dictionary says. The dictionary goes by the words general use. Gay marriage probably never went through the writer's mind until the issue was brought up, and now every new edition will be rife with the writer's personal beliefs.
Leave the dictionary out and go by what it really is. A union between two people to signify their intent to be committed to each other. And if you ask me, more straight people are perverting that true meaning than any gay people could ever even begin to do if they tried.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The fact is that all that is a part of the Old Law.
Says you.
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand any Christian/Jew/other OT believer seeing this way. I have my reasons for believing otherwise. And they actually make sense.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice to hear some other voices on this subject...
Ultimately it all goes back to my earlier posts that many people, especially OSC (seeing his opinions got all this started) trust a source of spiritual guidance above and beyond the Bible. Archer's posts on discrediting Biblical reasoning on such issues proves why the Bible cannot be the only source.
(Though ArCHeR I'm curious by what authority you presume to interpret scripture and assume God's will in such matters, especially when you contradict 95% of Christian faiths on the issue.)
OSC follows a faith that believes is headed up by a prophet of the Lord, one authorized to affirm God's will and guide its members with accurate doctrine. The words of those so authorized, additional scripture and other reliable (in his opinion) sources declare that the Lord has a Law of Chastity. This law is designed for the spiritual, mental, physical and emotional health and safety of His people, and we can ask WHY until we're blue in the face.
But it comes down to trust in God. You can manipulate scripture all you want, but accepting accurate doctine comes from personal revelation and being obedient FIRST––"Ye shall have no witness until after the trial of your faith." And no amount of explaining can replace the power of a personal testimony.
That's the problem with such debates. It goes beyond logic. It relies on spiritual means which is much harder to quantify.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. I think that while the discussions often stretch outside of revealed doctrine, there are still logical reasons for it. I am not against a little extrapolation to help something make sense to me. But I will easily defer to the fact that they are not doctrinal and could be incorrect.
But when you look at LDS doctrine:
We lived before this life as spirit children of God together with Him.
We decided to come into mortality and all that it entailed--in fact we shouted for joy at the prospect--because we knew it was the only way to become like our Heavenly Father.
Even in our spirit form we were already male and female--an eternal part of our nature.
Becoming like God included forming eternal family units that would continue eternally.
Marrying a member of the opposite sex and becoming parents is an important part of becoming like God. (Since God is married and a parent.) Even if we don't have the opportunity or ability to do so in this life, we will yet have the opportunity in the future.
Homosexuality is an obstacle to acheiving this goal, but far from the only obstacle. It is a part of the "test" of this life to see whether or not we will follow God, even if it is very difficult.
God requires chastity of those who would become like Him. He requires His children to master their earthly appetites and that sexual relations only happen between a married man and woman. This is the pattern that will extend into eternity--a procreating family unit going on to become Gods in their own right having their own children to pass through mortality in order to have the chance to become Gods themselves.
Homosexual sex cannot be chaste sex. It has no place in this pattern. Homosexual tendancies are a mortal obstacle that will not exist in the eternities any more than a sex change will be carried into the ressurrection. A male surgically altered to be female will be ressurrected male.
Even childless married couples will have the opportunity to procreate in the eternities. Not being able to procreate now does not make their sex unchaste because they are a valid family unit that can continue eternally and become parents as Gods. Sex does not just serve to procreate, it serves to bind husband and wife together in love and intimacy. Since they are a valid family unit according to the eternal pattern, their sex is chaste before God.
God understands when something is difficult for us and is merciful, taking it into consideration.
God is forgiving and patient with us.
If you remove all that stuff about the life before this one and eternal family units, I agree. Believing homosexuality is a sin doesn't make much sense.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said. People may not agree or believe such doctrine, but it can explain OSC's approach, and others can better understand where he's coming from. His conclusions and suggestions are his own, of course, but he comes from a mind-set that our society is trying to legitimize a standard that doesn't work.
What throws me is in insidious nature of some who condemn OSC with infernal logic of their own, based on their own twisted view of life...lies all wrapped up in a pretty bow.
The "Friendly Advice" thread recently posted is a perfect example of this...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People assuming that they are right and that there is no other valid way of looking at things really get on my nerves.
I don't care if someone believes differently as I do, though I might call them on it if it doesn't make sense. But as I try to understand where others are coming from, I appreciate the same in kind.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Men have orgasms in their sleep if they aren't having them in any other way because they *need* to have orgasms.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's nice is that people CAN agree to disagree, but it's fascinating to hear their side of things.
Too often people get emotional and hurtful and words like "bigot" get thrown around, which is why I piped in on this thread in the first place...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read theories on how homosexuality comes about which were wrong on a logical level. They keep pulling out the old Freudian distant father, overbearing mother routine. It's sexist in a way and shatters into a ton of pieces when one realizes how badly this reflects on folks like Cheney with gay sons or daughters. Or they think it's from lack of masculinity or feminimity. Makes no sense. There probably a lot of gay atheletes and lesbians who wear make-up. It's not all limp wrists and truck drivers. But, there's no point to this other than the fact that I am a terrible person for thinking that 95% of the right is completely, absolutely wrong and misinformed about homosexuality, but many of them are misinformed about Christianity too! They, on these irratating sites, state that most gays die before the age of 43, have numerous love affairs, lots of money, tons of diseases, lead lonely and miserable lives. It's not nice to call them bigots, but they are not presenting the facts, and as I said before, they aren't much different to me than people who say that blacks are inferior. It's the same exact thing... *does research now* I need to retire from here and instead write an essay... Though, there are some gays that lead an unhealthy lifestyle. This is true... To a certain extent... *needs to stop doing this*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that for every justification for homosexuality, there are just as many against it, but it sounds like you could read a thousand reasons and it wouldn't be enough. If you truly want to understand you have to walk down a different path...
As I've said before, if you want to want to know God's opinion on the matter, you need to seek after Him and be obedient to Him and, in time, I believe one can be guided to truth and receive strength to overcome anything.
Seeing it is condemned by nearly every major religion (being contrary to the design of humankind) and is considered a dead-end by evolutionists (for any subspecies that cannot propogate will die out), and since long-term, monogamous same-sex sexual relationships do NOT exist in nature...I'm curious myself if there will be an international study to explain it.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:(Though ArCHeR I'm curious by what authority you presume to interpret scripture and assume God's will in such matters, especially when you contradict 95% of Christian faiths on the issue.)
Wow. 95%? Really?
Fact is I don't contradict the Bible. Don't believe me? Try reading it. Go ahead and read the Bible and see if anything I say is incorrect. Find the original greek version of the NT too, and compare all that "homosexual" stuff to the actual greek. Go ahead and translate each part of the word.
Did you ever think that maybe Christian faiths misinterperet 95% of the Bible (by the way, I don't know how you came up with that figure. I'd say I agree with 95%)?
quote:Don't believe this... Any man you would want to be involved with at all would be able to restrain himself from going bonkers.
Yes, many men have a strong sex drive, but it's not like they need sex to survive.
Do you always do that? Where you only read part of what's going on?
There is a big difference between sex and orgasms (women would probably agree with me more than men).
quote:Though, there are some gays that lead an unhealthy lifestyle. This is true...
So do straight couples. Pick a random sitcom that's not on a channel owned by Disney. You'll see what I mean.
quote:As I've said before, if you want to want to know God's opinion on the matter, you need to seek after Him and be obedient to Him and, in time, I believe one can be guided to truth and receive strength to overcome anything.
Yeah, but the trouble is that God is real picky about who he talks to. Heck, the only person he's talking to now is Joan Girardi, and Bruce Nolan.
quote:Seeing it is condemned by nearly every major religion (being contrary to the design of humankind)
The religions don't necissarily condemn it, the practicioners of the religions do.
quote:and is considered a dead-end by evolutionists (for any subspecies that cannot propogate will die out)
Most people aren't gay. The species will survive. It's not like everyone will turn gay if you let gay people marry. And what about all those children given up for adoption each year? If they don't have a loving home, how do you expect them to be productive members of society?
quote:and since long-term, monogamous same-sex sexual relationships do NOT exist in nature
Now THAT one is just a bold-faced lie. They DO exist in nature. I know for a fact that there are several gay penguin couples in at least one zoo (I'm pretty sure there are more). And they're not the only ones either...
Try researching the things you sazy before you say them...
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, of course you are going to find tons of stuff like that on the internet. It's the *internet*. Duh.
I bet you could find plenty more attacking Christians and giving misinformation there. People love to tear things down, and they figure the internet is a swell place to do it. You can't stop people from being stupid. (Of course, you will also find plenty of sites defending homosexuality/Christianity/whatever on the other side of the coin.)
If you want to influence the minds of people, start with the ones who are capable of rational thought. Quit worrying so much about the wackos.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Where? Because he said the old law has passed away? That isn't very specific, is it? And it is awfully convenient to discount the words of Paul.
Christ condemned unchaste sex, and most Christians believe homosexual sex is part of that. I have given my reasons for why I believe that is the case. You may disagree with it, but you need to accept that there are other ways of looking at this situation than your own.
Your arguments just can't hold water with a religion that believes in living prophets who do speak to God on a regular basis and have made it clear time and time again that all homosexual sex is unchaste sex in God's eyes. For Mormons, their words carry just as much weight as any words in the Bible if not more so because they are specifically for our time. Not to mention Catholics who believe that the Pope speaks for God and who's words are scripture.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd LOVE to see scientific proof that same-sex animals do indeed have long-term, monogamous sexual relationships. Same-sex play and dominance behavior certainly exists, and same-sex long-term relationships do exist (but are NOT sexual in nature). So since it's a "lie," I'd love to see the scientific study and the conclusions on its existence.
I mean, did these penguins pick out curtains together?
As for the rest, I don't even know where to begin to start. Since we seem to think we can pick and choose whatever we want from the Bible, it just proves we need another source. For OSC and others of the Church of Jesus Christ, that other source exists today.
(BTW, I think I knew one of those penguins. He was an art director at the ad agency I used to work at. Very cool. Great dresser.)
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wendell and Cass, two penguins at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island, Brooklyn, live in a soap opera world of seduction and intrigue. Among the 22 male and 10 female African black-footed penguins in the aquarium's exhibit, tales of love, lust and betrayal are the norm. These birds mate for life. But given the disproportionate male-female ratio at the aquarium, some of the females flirt profusely and dump their partners for single males with better nests.
Okay, right off it looks like they're establishing that this isn't reflective of what actually happens in the wild. So saying "look at these penguins, they're in a long-term homosexual relationship. See! It does happen in nature!" seems a little off.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious to read that book and see more examples. Fascinating, to be sure...
Unfortunately, both sides of the issue will read into it as they will. Those who believe the human species to be animal in nature will use it as proof, and visa versa. As for me, since I believe we are children of God and not animals (though housed in mortal bodies with many of the same characteristics, a condition of this experience), it just shows we must transcend base urges and become greater than the animal plane.
I mean, some animals eat their young, and my cat tinkles on the carpet occasionally...
posted
Rather than strictly being based upon "faith", this division has more to do with biblical interpretation and the projection of moral categories upon certain acts within a certain historical context that has been overgeneralized and stamped with the label of "homosexuality", for not all Christians believe homosexuality as a broad category to be morally wrong. Therefore it is not sufficient to hide behind strawdogs as when someone says, "But the bible says x." We leave it up to liberation theology and such to conceive of interpretations that better fit the real world that we live in today.
posted
While Card does belong to a church that believes in the bible and interprets it in a way that is called conservative by society, he has specific reasons for personally advocating against permanent homosexual relationships. That is, people in homosexual relationships are cut off from succeeding generations. I supposed that if the biological barrier to have a biological child with a member of the same sex is ever hurdled, he may have to amend his opinion.
I take a more socialogical view, that women are still largely discriminated against and for it to be made permissable for men to dispense with them altogether seems unfair to me. This is assuming that there are more gay men than lesbian women- I'm working from the stats of 10% of men are gay and 3% of women are lesbian. I don't see how someone who says "I can't be attracted to a woman" can turn around and accuse others of discrimination. Especially since I believe the definition of discrimination contained in the film "Philadelphia".
Then there is the philosophical concern of chosen vs. congenital homosexuality. When I was young, I was taught to tolerate gays because America is a free country and people can do as they please provided they accept the consequences. But as I entered adulthood the "born gay" movement really got going.
The fact is, I don't think homosexual love is less than heterosexual love. I think they are the same, and therefore interchangeable. I still believe in the idea that everyone is potentially gay. This used to be considered quite avant garde, until people began to realize that it also means everyone is potentially straight as well.
I agree with the idea that lawless heterosexuals are damaging society much more (including the spread of AIDS) much more than homosexuals. The basic problem is that real love is almost lost from our culture, and replaced with infatuation. And where people are consumed with "what turns them on" I suspect it is infatuation. This could be members of the opposite sex, members of the same sex, Asians, blondes, well endowed people etc. It brings discrimination into the emotion of love, where I think it has no place.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:people in homosexual relationships are cut off from succeeding generations. I supposed that if the biological barrier to have a biological child with a member of the same sex is ever hurdled, he may have to amend his opinion.
I fail to see how one can make a moral argument out of this astute observation. Surely straight couples who are either sterile or plan not to have children are not exempt from marrying each other. So, I ask, since when was marriage primarily about the propagation of the species: a species that is in no danger of running of steam now that the population has breached the 6 billion mark.
posted
Resources. Peak oil. Humans are really not in danger of going extinct anytime soon. If some people decide not to have children it certainly would not hurt us, not like in Biblical times.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: We leave it up to liberation theology and such to conceive of interpretations that better fit the real world that we live in today.
That is exactly the problem. It isn't "liberation theology." It called unauthorized persons interpreting scripture to make it fit their own desires. That was Jesus' contention against those so-called teachers of doctrine during his time--they perverted the truth to fit their own pride and greed and lusts.
Setting up a marketplace in the temple so people can purchase their sacrifices and worship more effectively. Seems reasonable, right? It better fits the "real world"? No. Jesus drove them out because it was not consistent with truth. It was false doctrine.
There's where the problem lies. Everyone's definition of what is divine truth, if they believe it even exists, is different.
Ah, there's the rub...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, that is the main reason why I have certain issues with the bible. It has been handed down for thousands of years, translated by people who had their own agendas. Who knows what's true anymore? This person could decide to leave these 4 books of the bible out, this person could decide to translate a certain thing this way instead of how it was written. It's what I hate about the international version of the bible, the way they translate it as specifically saying "homosexuality" when that wasn't really the case. I think the only way to really understand the bible is to look at the context it was written in and to look at a lot of perspectives to form the truth.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That was Jesus' contention against those so-called teachers of doctrine during his time--they perverted the truth to fit their own pride and greed and lusts.
And it seems that most Christians have failed to learn from the mistakes of the pre-Jesus Jews. The Jews were so rigid in their morality that all Jesus had to do was point out the flaws in their morality. The reason they crucified Jesus was not because they were evil but becase they clung tenaciously and uncritically to the status quo.
Ever wonder why they made Socrates drink the poison hemlock? Same reason.
quote: So are we supposed to stop eating and using the bathroom?
You're missing the point.
We don't just drop everything and kill a cow (or a small child) whenever we get the munchies, do we? We don't sit in our own waste when we get the urge to go to the bathroom, do we?
Base urges aren't bad or evil. But we learn to put them off in favor of greater things. Like sanitation. Or personal/mental growth. Or for the greater good of society.
posted
Back to the subject of bonobo apes (which was mentioned early on in this thread to defend homosexual behavior as natural) bonobo apes do indeed participate in a variety of sexual behavior often. Both same-sex and opposite-sex. They seem to make no distinction, freely enjoying both hetero- and homosexual sex. These creatures are supposedly our closest relatives.
So what are we to learn from this? If we learn anything, it is that we all have the capacity to be bi-sexual. Even those who are homosexual.
If that is the case, and a person believes that homosexual sex is sinful, then it makes sense that we can, in fact, influence our rising generation to be either hetero or homo.
Which brings up implications about the effects we can have on the sexuality of our society. And if you *do* in fact believe that homosexual sex is sinful, then you will want to do all you can to encourage the rising generation to be heterosexual and to not encourage homosexual attraction.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that is why many who feel homosexual sex is sinful want to keep society from recognizing and rewarding homosexual unions. Many who support gay marriage assure that society moving in that direction will not encourage an increase in homosexual relationships. They say homosexuality is inborn rather than something that is learned through experience. Likely it is a complex combination of both and only on occasion entirely one or the other.
We live in a society that favors heterosexual relationships. Take fairy-tales for example. That is what kids grow up on, and they never feature homosexual love. It may be that if our society favored either form of sexual bonding equally, there would be far more children growing up to prefer same-sex over the opposite sex as compared to the proportions now.
Now, my concern is not so much with continuing the human species, my concerns are more religious in nature. And I completely understand that if someone doesn't hold these beliefs, they may see nothing wrong with the scenario described above. At least nothing rationally wrong.
But still, this constitutes a rational reason for an opposition of gay marriage--assuming one already understands the belief that some hold that homosexuality is sinful. They aren't hoping homosexuality will "go away", but they don't want to encourage more of it either.
posted
I'm not sure it works. A lot of prominent right wingers have children that are gay. How can they explain that? Most gay people are raised by straight people. Plus as it stands now, most young people do not want to be gay. Gays get made fun of, beat up, teased. And, even if gays stopped being teased and picked on, most people would STILL not become gay because most guys consider other guys to be repulsive. Girls might be a bit different, they are a little more fluid than men are. Homosexuality in men still equals weak, which is what these extreme groups prey on when they are trying to "Reverse" homosexuality. But, I kind of wish they had gay faery tales.... I have one in a story of mine. I really don't think that seeing homosexuality as normal will have that much of an influence on kids that are straight.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess as society changes, we will know. Society has been slowly moving in that direction for several decades now. I don't see why it would stop, in spite of the recent vote. If not in this generation, then in the next. I mean, seriously. Just imagine how society would have reacted if gay marriage were placed to a vote in the 50s. Obviously things have changed *a lot*.
So, Syn, do you side with the idea that people are what they are from birth? What do you think of the Bonobos example? Do you think that maybe we have so few homosexuals because society favors heterosexuality so strongly?
quote: A lot of prominent right wingers have children that are gay. How can they explain that?
Rebellion?
Seriously, I have no idea. I still believe that some causes of homosexuality are inborn. But I also think that humans are complex critters.
Either way, I look at the inability to be attracted to the opposite sex as a disability, like deafness. (I don't know how many homosexuals are unable to be attracted to the opposite sex and how many simply prefer the same sex of the two.)
Even if our society were kinder to homosexuals (while I am against encouraging homosexuality, I am firmly against cruelty and unkindness) it is still a society that is far easier to live in if you are hetero. Just as a hearing society is hard for deaf to live in. The deaf get along great when they only have to deal with other deaf, or in a society where everyone is fluent in sign language (like in Martha's Vineyard, the Deaf utopia of years past). But unfortunately, such a society just isn't realistic.
The big difference is that in our society we do not commit violence on the deaf. That is because while most people look at being deaf as undesirable, no one feels threatened by it. Might they be more threatened if deafness were a choice that might be attractive to the rising generation for some reason or other? Or maybe if subtle influences in one's childhood could trigger it?
If homosexuality will *not* increase in a homosexual-friendly society, then homosexuality will always be in the minority and society will always favor the majority. I agree that in this situation it doesn't make sense to be against gay marriage. If homosexuality does increase in a homosexual-friendly society, then it becomes more mainstream, more common, and thus more reflected in the society. Then I see a reason to be against encouraging/rewarding homosexual relationships.
And if we are like bonobos, I think the second is more likely.
posted
My theory as to why rigid straights tend to raise gays is because they send their children the message that it's not okay for boys to express "feeling". The father thinks "Well, if I'm not allowed to express my anima (the female side of every male), then why should I let my kids do it?" Sending this kind of stringent demand upon kids causes an internal conflict that can only be balanced in two ways:
1) Homophobia 2) Homosexuality
The reason why homosexuality is less common in females than in males is because females are generally permitted to express both their emotive side and their rationality side, though the former faculty is emphasized and therefore often develops more strongly. Females, therefore, are more psychically balanced than males.
posted
That's it. It really doesn't matter what causes gayness. The Freudian model doesn't really hold true. I don't think it's child abuse that causes it, otherwise, sadly more people would be gay if that was the case. Perhaps all humans are inherently bi, that does make sense. Women are obviously more fluid then men. There is something called compulsary heterosexuality in which someone said that because people are surrounded by heterosexual images gayness is disencouraged. That could be true on a certain level. There are men that find women revolting in a sexual way, same wome some women. Then you have folks that just think, well, whatever comes along and the sort of people who or bi because it's fashionable. Really, I think it depends on a lot of factors. It is possible to be exclusively gay and still fall for someone of the same sex. There's a different between what a person has an attraction for and what they end up dating or marrying. Once again, it's complex. But does it even matter? Gay people just exist and have existed since there have been humans. We can either force people to conform which hasn't worked and causes more problems then it solves or accept the fact that some people are gay and perhaps there is a reason and pattern for that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
