FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » New Sodom thread (no snarkiness allowed :D ) (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: New Sodom thread (no snarkiness allowed :D )
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
My pet theory runs along these lines:

Society has specified gender roles. Men are aggressive, confrontational, direct - strong. Logical, rational - although we confuse this for not being emotional. Just because you don't show emotion in no way reflects your ability to think.

Women are soft, subtle, indirect - weak. Emotional.

Based on these stereotpyes or perceived gender roles, Men view their masculinity like so. In being soft or subtle or showing emotion beyond anger, we feel ourselves becoming less masculine. And if you're not one, you're the other - in this case, a woman.

The same thing happens to women - for a long time, women couldn't play sports or be aggressive without being accused of "wanting to be a man" or just being a bitch. Whereas, as many of you have noted, these qualities are applauded and encouraged in men.

Now, throw homosexuality in the mix. A gay man knows he's not attracted to women, which is a fundamental element of masculinity. He is attracted to other men, so he subconsciously adopts his perceived traits of women because he feels himself not to be a man and he only has one other option open to him.

Reverse this chain of thinking for lesbians and it still functions, more or less.

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
And yet it seems to me that a lot of the men that find themselves to be homosexual later started out being more "soft and sensitive" than the average little boy to begin with. From birth on. I know this isn't always the case, but it happens a lot. It has been my observation. Thus leading me to my personal theory that a lot of males feel that they are not very good at "being" male and therefore identify more with females. Whether this leads to them being attracted to males rather than females, I cannot say. It may be that whatever caused them to be "softer" in the first place also caused the tendancy to same-sex attraction. Certainly there are plenty of "manly men" who experience same-sex attraction as well. It is so difficult to prove causality. I know of no studies done on this, I can only call up my own experiences.

I think of my first love, who later confessed to being bi-sexual. He was very slight and short, sensitive, all of those things. I think he felt very unmasculine and because of it developed a deep admiration for masculinity, a desire to "mate" with it so to speak, make it a part of him.

I noticed when I would "dress up" in a way that flattered my feminine figure, he would start acting more "masculine" around me--in a good way. You know, all romantic, gentlemanly, and chivilrous. And I responded to it positively. I loved that I had that effect on him, a sort of "power" over him. He was not unresponsive to the female figure as many homosexual men seem to be.

But, alas, we separated and after me he has chosen male companionship since. It makes me sad because I know that deep down he wanted to be masculine, he wanted to be the center of a woman's desire. I could not be his woman because I had decided firmly that I would only marry someone of my own faith. I believed we had no future, and I think he sensed that. We grew apart. And to my knowledge, he hasn't been romantically involved with a female since.

I certainly did not become the tom-boy I was in response to my sexual orientation. I was way too young when such personality traits set in.

I do think that society is a lot more accepting of women doing manly things than it is of men being effeminite. But that seems to be slowly changing. (Thinks of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy")

[ August 05, 2004, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Now, throw homosexuality in the mix. A gay man knows he's not attracted to women, which is a fundamental element of masculinity. He is attracted to other men, so he subconsciously adopts his perceived traits of women because he feels himself not to be a man and he only has one other option open to him.

This runs contrary to my own experience. I know many homosexuals that don't have a single feminine trait about them. I know gay men who LOVE sports, cars, hunting, fishing, and who think "decorating" is something you only do a Christmas. My ex's current boyfriend has seasons tickets to the local football team. There is a whole subset of gay culture that caters to men who like masculine gay men.

My current boyfriend is shorter than I am and pretty svelte, but he doesn't have a single feminine mannerism. I don't think that I do either. This is good because neither of us are particularly attracted to nelly or swishy or effeminate men. I myself am 6'1", well over 230 lbs, somewhat hairy, and into "low maintenance" grooming. Most of my straight friends at work tell me that they would never have guessed I was gay if I didn't talk about my boyfriend like they talk about their wives/husbands.

As for interests, mine could be said to be in the less-than-masculine side. I love arts and crafts. I do beadwork. I did cross-stitch when I was 13-17. I love to garden. I hate team sports, and most pro-sports. But I like to hike and swim and play one on one type games.

In short, I've never felt myself to be a woman, or even particularly womanly. I love and respect women and can appreciate the female figure in an aesthetic sense, but I have never been attracted to it sexually.

quote:
I think he felt very unmasculine and because of it developed a deep admiration for masculinity, a desire to "mate" with it so to speak, make it a part of him.

This sounds like it could have some merit. I understand the idealization of certain masculine traits. It doesn't seem un-plausible that your friend's sexuality was shaped in such a way, at least to some degree. I think it is dangerous to extrapolate individual experiences into general trends, though. I think homosexuality is a very broad spectrum that really only shares one thing in common and that is desire for the male form sexually. My boyfriend Chris, as I said above is physically pretty masculine despite his size. He is hairy and grows facial hair and has a nicely muscled body. But he is one of the most sensitive men I know. He likes to be cuddled. He's a sucker for sentimentality and romance. He's a bit of a kid, like I am. He loves video games, comic books, and sci-fi movies. In fact the only things particularly "feminine" about him are things that the world would be better off promoting more in men, i.e. his sensitivity, meekness, and kindness.

I'm rambling now, so I'll close and go hug my sweetie.

Oh, and thanks to everyone who said such nice things about me. [Blushing] I'm sure I come across better in print than I do IRL.

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think it is dangerous to extrapolate individual experiences into general trends, though. I think homosexuality is a very broad spectrum that really only shares one thing in common and that is desire for the male form sexually.
I agree. I am trying to understand more about homosexuality and individual cases so that I avoid making sweeping generalizations about homosexuals in general. That was one of the reasons why I started that thread "Ask the 22 Year Old Male Homosexual" (Or something like that. The thread appears to have gone the way of all the earth, unfortunately.) I had very little understanding based on my limited experience and wanted to understand more. I have appreciated the things I have learned here on Hatrack. [Smile]

I think it is nearly impossible to really understand and perceive the trends of society. Society is too complex for studies to really reveal what is happening, and our anecdotal evidence can never be spread so systematically. All any of us can do is make an educated guess.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"I'm sure I come across better in print than I do IRL."

Nope. You're still a doll in MeatSpace, too. [Smile]

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
One recent study showed that women have a generally lower and more "diffuse" response to sexually explicit video of opposite and same sex types, FWIW.

Also, in some contradiction with TM, it's been shown that there is somewhat of a decoupling between gender identity and sexual orientation. As an anecdote, there is a user on a board some Jatraqueros visit (arstechnica) which has as a prolific poster a literal "lesbian trapped in a man's body". This poster is a post-op transexual (male->female) in a committed (married Wiccan, I believe) lesbian relationship. How common this is I'm don't know, I'll admit.

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
I have heard of fairly common instances of male cross-dressers who are very much straight. They really enjoy dressing up like women. And they enjoy women too.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
I think my brush with bisexuality was more about being emotionally needy and angry with men. But I wouldn't have been so angry with men if it hadn't been for me being heterosexual. That's why I don't really gel with the idea that either homosexuality or heterosexuality is a hardwired thing.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
I've heard of that before, the anger with men and women turning to other women for those needs. But I don't think I have ever heard of it happening with men. Weird.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
I think that would be another gender difference between men and women.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dabbler
Member
Member # 6443

 - posted      Profile for dabbler   Email dabbler         Edit/Delete Post 
Bok, I know of a similar case. A female friend dated a woman who later decided she was a gay man trapped in a woman's body. That woman has now transitioned into a masculine personna and has a boyfriend.

Every variation we could think of involving gender and sexuality exists in this world, and not uniquely.

Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
The part I don't understand: why not just emphasize and promote commitment, enduring love, and responsibility to a relationship and to the people in it?

The only valid reason I can see for a society to condemn homosexuality is if the society is dangerously underpopulated, and that's hardly a problem here. I do see where society has an interest in promoting lifelong bonds since that strengthens the society. So why not speak out against promiscuity and irresponsible behavior, and reward those who would commit?

[ August 06, 2004, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
Like I said Karl - just a pet theory. My buddy also defies the common stereotype and my pet theory. Not that it would apply to every possible person, but I'm pretty sure I was bored when I started conjecting. [Big Grin]

As to the nurture/nature idea, I suspect both are valid. Some people are homosexual by birth (hardwired), some are by choice (social).

Granted, it's not a "mmm, I think I'd like pancakes this morning" kind of choice.

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
enjeeo
Member
Member # 2336

 - posted      Profile for enjeeo   Email enjeeo         Edit/Delete Post 
KarlEd wrote:
quote:
What I'm asking is what is it about me as a homosexual that is a detriment to society at large? Why does something need to be done about about me at all? How is society diminished in the least if I continue my life as I am living it until the day I die?
KarlEd, (hi, long time no see)

You are basically (it seems) asking 'why is it an issue for me to just go about living my life, affecting noone except myself & my partner?'. I think if you want an honest or useful answer to the question you need to be honest enough to acknowledge that the gay agenda goes way beyond mere toleration of an alternative lifestyle.

So you 'just living as you choose to live' has come to mean the rest of society:
- legalising same sex marriage
- allowing gays to adopt children
- giving gays access to infertility resources already under strain
- change sex education in schools so that teachers must teach about homosexuality on an equal par with heterosexuality.

Now there are certainly some out there who do not feel that any of these changes would be detrimental to society. Others think they would. But there is no question that they would fundamentally alter the way society approaches marriage, adoption, and education. So sitting there shrugging your shoulders and saying, 'but I'm not affecting their lives...why do they care?' is just lame. Whether or not you agree with them, it should be easy for you to at least understand why those who feel strongly that the traditional definitions of marriage and family are the core of our social structure feel that there are important issues here to be addressed...to 'do something about' as you say.

On the personal side of things though, in regards to those who want to 'do something about you' in the sense of trying to find a way to make you straight, or encourage you to abandon your gay lifestyle, then my answer is that they have no right or reason to do any more than they would (or should) in regards to anyone who they think is committing a serious sin. They should:
- educate them in the truth (this does not mean harrassing people every time you happen to be in their presence)
- encourage their efforts towards righteousness
- treat them like anyone else in other matters (eg a church authority might excommunicate someone for a serious sin, but that shouldn't change their right to vote, or their right to social security, etc)
- allow them their free will
- look to themselves and focus on perfecting themselves rather than pointing at other people

[ August 06, 2004, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: enjeeo ]

Posts: 2451 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with your post - good points - but I'm not sure all of these follow:

- legalising same sex marriage

That's certainly the question on the table, but it's not the only outcome. There's still the civil union option.

- allowing gays to adopt children

Still don't understand why this is wrong, frankly, even if gays can't marry.

- giving gays access to infertility resources already under strain

Where did this come from? Haven't seen it mentioned as a problem before.

- change sex education in schools so that teachers must teach about homosexuality on an equal par with heterosexuality.

I see this as an exaggerated fear brought on by panicky religionists (bolstered by too-liberal activists who have suggested just that). If it mentions it at all, sex education should say that yes, a small percentage of humans tends to be homosexual, and leave it at that. No urging kids to try it out or anything. Sex ed should teach kids the biological aspect of sex honestly and truthfully, without pressing moral interpretations from either direction. That's how I think it should be taught now, legalizing gay marriage shouldn't change that.

I'm not picking your post apart here, these are the fears expressed by many others and they need to be addressed.

[ August 06, 2004, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
[Big Grin]

Karl-- your local footbal team is the Ravens.

Rhymes with Mavens.

Ergo. . .

[Big Grin]

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Maven = expert (Yiddish) = [Confused]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya [Wink]

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, never mind.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Enjeeo,

I'll ditto what Chris said above and add a couple of things.

First, gays already have access to "already strained" fertility resources. I don't know of any fertility clinics that will refuse treatment to a woman if she is healthy and she can pay for it regardless of whether she's lesbian or straight. If you're talking about healthcare dollars being strained, you'd first have to convince the majority that any fertility treatments should be covered under normal health care at the expense of using those resources for life-threatening conditions. And as for gay men, all the fertility treatments in the world aren't going to help me get Chris pregnant, so you don't have to worry about me.

Secondly, all of your issues mentioned above boil down to the same arguement. Easing discriminatory practices against gays will diminish the stigma of homosexuality which will hurt society by making that lifestyle more attractive and turning our children into homosexuals.

Personally, I find this argument highly questionable. However, let's just assume for a moment that it is a valid concern. In what way is this different from arguing for legislation to ban all McDonald's advertising and relegate them to skid-row neighborhoods because they are making our children fat?

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
I have already stated what my concerns are. I am more concerned about the media's subtle and not-so-subtle messages, and peer pressure than I am about legislation or individual activities. Edit: Though I still am uncomfortable about homosexual parent rolemodels. Already talked about that.

But I think most of all, I am disturbed a the growing feeling of many that to believe homosexual relations are sinful is bigoted, hateful, and homophobic. That is the evil, hurtful stereotype that I personally am trying most to fight against, albeit with understanding and honesty rather than more hurting words. I think it is every bit as wrong as being prejudice against homosexuals because of hate or fear.

[ August 06, 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, I've already stated my understanding of the religious point of view. However, if you look at it in terms of philosophy, if I am to understand and even accept your philosophy that states that my philosophy (which includes homsexuality) is sinful, should you not also be willing to endure the designation of your own demonstrably chosen philosophy as bigoted? (NOTE: I am not calling you a bigot. I do recognize, as you do, that there are those who would.)

In other words, what we have is a clash of philosophies. You can't expect one side to live with the negative opinions of the other side but not expect that side to reciprocate. If I can endure the label of sinner knowing in my heart that what I do is not sinful, can you not also endure the label of bigot secure in the self knowledge that you are not?

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
KarlEd, I try not to throw around those labels, and I expect the other side to do the same. If they think I am bigoted, then so be it. But if they think calling me a bigot is going to shame me into changing my mind, that is like me calling you a sinner and expecting it to shame you into changing your mind. Both approaches are silly, evil, and hurtful IMO.

Also, I should be expected to understand how in your and many others minds, you are doing nothing sinful at all. And those who honestly think I am bigoted should understand that this is based on something I hold sacred rather than hate or fear.

I am still not sure what I think of the word "bigot". Here is one definition:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb

Does this describe me? I am not sure that it does. Am I and my church bigoted against those who practice extra-marital sex?

Also, bigot seems to attack the person where as I am *only* concerned about behavior. Homosexual tendancies don't bother me. They happen. That's life.

[ August 06, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Your point is my point exactly. While you and I have this understanding, we both have those on our respective sides who do not and will not.

Dictionary definitions aside, the word bigot has come to mean "anyone who holds a negative opinion of a group" and seems to be used that way quite a bit. I disagree with this bastardization of the language but I don't know what one can do other than constantly state one's opinion. I do not think you are a bigot. I wouldn't expend a lot of energy worrying about name callers or trolls on this board, though, and I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over theoretical ones.

For the record, though we still disagree on some points, this has been, for me at least, one of the more productive and civil conversations on this topic and your concern about being understood correctly is one of the reasons why. Thanks. [Smile]

[ August 06, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

For the record, though we still disagree on some points, this has been, for me at least, one of the more productive and civil conversations on this topic and your concern about being understood correctly is one of the reasons why. Thanks. [Smile]

Yay! Thanks KarlEd. I really want this discussion to benefit both sides. I believe so strongly that it is possible for people of very different views to nevertheless understand each other and find a way to live in harmony.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
- giving gays access to infertility resources already under strain
Where did this come from? Haven't seen it mentioned as a problem before.

Chris, I do think people have mentioned this as a reason gay people need the right to marry. But I don't think it is . Though I did at one time propose that if adoption/childrearing were the main motive behind gay marriage, that some allowances should be made. I was specifically thinking of adoptions where the father of a child is unknown, that the bio father can't come back later and sue for parental rights.

Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
enjeeo
Member
Member # 2336

 - posted      Profile for enjeeo   Email enjeeo         Edit/Delete Post 
Chris Bridges

Actually rather than picking my post apart you've just emphasised my point. Some people think these things would be detrimental, others do not see them as harmful to society at all. But they ARE issues that are on the table. All I was saying is that it is no longer enough to claim that you just want to left alone to live your life as you choose, because a significant percentage of the gay community want, and are actively seeking, much more than that. Please notice that I haven't said they don't have the right to do that...I merely said that KarlEd should acknowledge, in a discussion like this, that the matter isn't as simple as he was making it sound.

KarlEd wrote:
quote:
Secondly, all of your issues mentioned above boil down to the same arguement. Easing discriminatory practices against gays will diminish the stigma of homosexuality which will hurt society by making that lifestyle more attractive and turning our children into homosexuals.
Actually that wasn't my argument at all. Given that statistically most gays have straight parents, I wouldn't make such a stupid argument. I don't think that legalising same sex marriage would make homosexual lifestyles more attractive. I think that media and movie/tv images certainly do, especially in the last five years, but that's an issue for a different thread.

Regarding your response re the various issues I listed, I can't answer for the US, but as a close friend to a lesbian lawyer who is deeply involved in the fight for such rights, I can assure you that lesbian women can only access reproductive services (in all but one state of Australia) if they are physically infertile. They are seeking to have things redefined so that sexual orientation is included as a reason for infertility, for the purpose of gaining access to these services. A Senate committee is looking right now at the legal definition of marriage.

Just as with the women's movement, there IS an agenda, and it WILL fundamentally change things if it succeeds. Think that's bad? Fine. Think that's great? Fine. Just don't shrug it off and act like 'why does it hurt society to just give us a little space to live our lives in' because the issues run much deeper than that. And I don't believe you don't know that.

Posts: 2451 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't think that legalising same sex marriage would make homosexual lifestyles more attractive. I think that media and movie/tv images certainly do, especially in the last five years, but that's an issue for a different thread.
Do you believe that media has a bigger influence on kids than their family does?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
The media doesn't just influence children.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Actually that wasn't my argument at all. Given that statistically most gays have straight parents, I wouldn't make such a stupid argument.
No, but it was my argument, and I don't think it is stupid. Most parents are straight, so it makes sense that most homosexual individuals come from straight parents. Just like most congenitally deaf children come from hearing parents. But deaf parents have a higher percentage of deaf children than hearing parents do because they are more likely to pass on deafness genetically. At least that is my understanding. I could be wrong....

But I do believe that children are very impressionable and that homosexual parental role models do have an effect, however slight, on a child's own sexual orientation. I can't prove it, though, and I don't know of any studies done on the subject. There may not be enough homosexual parental couples in order to do a proper study. I say it because of my own personal life experiences. [Smile]

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But I do believe that children are very impressionable and that homosexual parental role models do have an effect, however slight, on a child's own sexual orientation. I can't prove it, though, and I don't know of any studies done on the subject. There may not be enough homosexual parental couples in order to do a proper study. I say it because of my own personal life experiences.
I'm sure that's true, just as heterosexual parents have an effect on their children's sexual orientation even if they eventually turn out to be gay. This begs the question, though, of whether this is something to fear and if it justifies curtailing the rights of homosexuals and/or promulgating homosexuality as a negative. I doubt many gay parents would try to force homosexuality on their children. I imagine that gay parents would be just a joyful at the prospect of progeny as straight parents are.

Enjeeo wrote:
quote:
All I was saying is that it is no longer enough to claim that you just want to left alone to live your life as you choose, because a significant percentage of the gay community want, and are actively seeking, much more than that.
What "much more" than that are we actively seeking? What do we want that isn't a right/priviledge that other Americans enjoy?

quote:
Just as with the women's movement, there IS an agenda, and it WILL fundamentally change things if it succeeds. Think that's bad? Fine. Think that's great? Fine. Just don't shrug it off and act like 'why does it hurt society to just give us a little space to live our lives in' because the issues run much deeper than that. And I don't believe you don't know that.
What is this agenda, and what parts of it have I shrugged off? Why all this hinting?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Telperion the Silver
Member
Member # 6074

 - posted      Profile for Telperion the Silver   Email Telperion the Silver         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But I do believe that children are very impressionable and that homosexual parental role models do have an effect, however slight, on a child's own sexual orientation.
I disagree wholeheartedly.

It might change behavior, but now how someone is hardwired. For instance watching straight couples/parents/etc it might make a gay person act straight too, but they still will be attracted to the same sex. And a more tolerant society will make homosexuality more "attractive" only to those peeps who are still in the closet who want to come out.

Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Enjeeo is correct, legalizing homosexual marriage / civil-union and homosexual parenting / adoption would have a major impact on society. So too would one because it would obviously soon lead to the other.

But I really don't think that's relevant at all. The issue is still, to my mind, "Can you convincingly demonstrate, without religious arguments, why homosexuality should be stigmatized in any way by the government?" If the answer to that question is 'no', then all such stigmas and barriers homosexual couples face that heterosexual couples do not should be removed.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm sure this has been answered several times but I still have to ask because I don't know the answer. Is there a "right to marriage" provided in the Constitution?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Explicitly? Certainly not. Implicitly? Who knows. The Constitution specifies that just because a right is not enumerated within does not mean it does not exist, which opens the situation up to just about anything.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This begs the question, though, of whether this is something to fear and if it justifies curtailing the rights of homosexuals and/or promulgating homosexuality as a negative. I doubt many gay parents would try to force homosexuality on their children. I imagine that gay parents would be just a joyful at the prospect of progeny as straight parents are.
My thoughts on this. First, yes it does beg the question, I agree. And I do ask myself that. I also doubt that many gay parents would try to force homosexuality on their kids. I honestly don't think they would.

But I imagine it would please them (assuming the child is the same gender as them), they would be proud of it, just as a heterosexual is proud of their child finding love with the opposite sex. I think there is a certain "bond" we feel with our children when we have something so fundamental in common. It is far from being a conscious thing, but subconscious things are hard to "fight", especially when a person sees little reason to fight.

Like, for example, the way parents gently imprint gender roles on their children without even realizing it even if they believe gender roles are to be avoided.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It might change behavior, but now how someone is hardwired. For instance watching straight couples/parents/etc it might make a gay person act straight too, but they still will be attracted to the same sex. And a more tolerant society will make homosexuality more "attractive" only to those peeps who are still in the closet who want to come out.
It is my own life that causes me to feel as I do on this matter. I personally believe a lot more people have homosexual tendancies than we realize (though such people may still also be attracted to the opposite sex). I think that sexual orientation is very complicated and is somewhat "fluid" in our young years. By the time we have become adults, it is pretty fixed in place though. That is just how it seems to me. It would be difficult to get me to believe otherwise given my own story.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Can you convincingly demonstrate, without religious arguments, why homosexuality should be stigmatized in any way by the government?"
You know, I don't think I can. I don't think I have ever even tried to. But that doesn't mean I am not slightly concerned over the matter. It doesn't keep me up at nights, though. I know the world is changing, and I try to look at the positive sides of those changes, do my best, raise my family the way I think it ought to be done, and share my ideas with all kinds of people.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If the answer to that question is 'no', then all such stigmas and barriers homosexual couples face that heterosexual couples do not should be removed.
It sounds to me like you are saying that if something cannot be proven legally, it shouldn't affect people's attitudes? There are many things that are completely legal that are not considered socially acceptable. Are you saying that because it's legal, everybody should be OK with it?

For example, misleading advertisements or buisness practices that don't cross the line into outright deception. It it perfectly legal, but if I am caught by that, it will cheese me off, and I will definitely lay a stigma on it. I will tell my friends how I feel I was ripped off. If the subject ever comes up, I'll tell people that I am a dissatisfied customer and that they should take their buisness elsewhere.

The legality of something does not have much bearing on whether people thing it is correct/proper/correct/right. Just because something is legal means it is permissable, but not necessarily acceptable. Stigmas come from our own personal feelings about how people should act. You could you even begin to remove all stigma from something as divisive as homosexual marriage?

Or did I totally misunderstand your use of the word stigma?

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it is clear from his phrasing that he is talking about governmentally imposed or promulgated stigmas and not social ones. Personally, I think that removal of the governmental obstacles is all gays can demand. I agree that you can't "remove" a stigma that is societally imposed even if something is technically legal. But again I don't think that is the stigma he is talking about.

Ironically, though, the social stigmas seem to be falling away on their own. I can see a much more accepting attitude for homosexuals in general today than even 10 years ago when I came out.

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
OK, that makes sense. I've just never seen the word stigma used in that way.

And yeah, I agree that the social stigma is largely falling away. But I don't think it will be completely gone in my lifetime or yours.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Porter,

Yeah, I meant it like Karl said-governmental 'stigma'. I just looked it up, and it appears to me at least that the word could be used like that-certainly barring homosexuals from marriage and adoption is a means of reproach and disapproval-but it's not the commonly used word. My bad *blush*

J4

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
No, I'm sure it won't. And it may never be completely gone, but I can live with that. [edit to remove comment that might be misconstrued as snarky]

[ August 09, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
I've always considered that once a primarily religious ceremony was recognized in a court of law and given legal standing as a recognized institution, it could not be legally denied to interested parties.

Now, if every marriage became a religious ceremony and the underlying "union" was listed as a "civil union", that would be another matter entirely.

Nothing dictates who a Church can or cannot marry - arguably, a religious institution could possibly be the last bastion of legally defendable racism and sexism. Until the cog of justice turns and everything changes.

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
School4ever
Member
Member # 5575

 - posted      Profile for School4ever   Email School4ever         Edit/Delete Post 
I just wanted to say from the viewpoint of an infertile person, that resources for infertile people don't seem to be strained. My own resources are strained, but I don't think infertility resources in general are strained.

I know this has little to do with the topic at hand, but the comment baffled me.

Posts: 188 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
enjeeo
Member
Member # 2336

 - posted      Profile for enjeeo   Email enjeeo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What "much more" than that are we actively seeking? What do we want that isn't a right/priviledge that other Americans enjoy?

You are referring to two different things here. The 'much more' I was referring to was 'much more than just being left alone'. The 'much more' you are using here is designed to imply that I have claimed that gays want to have 'much more' in the way of rights than they should expect, and you've emphasised that with your second sentence.

You know missing my point is one thing, but putting words in my mouth is quite another.
quote:
What is this agenda, and what parts of it have I shrugged off? Why all this hinting?
I already stated the agenda, you shrugged it off by pretending now that I haven't, and I haven't 'hinted' at anything. I stated it all clearly.
Posts: 2451 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Enjeeo, I hope this thread isn't taking a snarky turn. This is the second time at least in this thread where you've implied I am being disingenuous. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are missing my point even though I could claim your first post put words in my mouth. Rather than imply disingenuousness on your part, however, I chose to address your points. Perhaps I did so imperfectly or perhaps I did miss your point, but I have been nothing but honest in my replies so far.

I've never claimed that "all I want is to be left alone". I've always stated that I was in favor of major changes in the way laws are unfairly applied in this country to exclude gays from what I believe are basic rights straights enjoy. Therefore, my "What 'much more'. . .?" question wasn't referring to being left alone, but to wanting the same legal standing as straight people.

I guess the misunderstanding is from you minimalizing (and therefore misrepresenting - perhaps innocently) my point. To be clear, my contention isn't that I want to be "left alone". I want homosexuals to be able to enjoy the same freedoms/priviledges/rights legally that the goverment extends to straight people. I want gay couples to be legally recognized and to have the same rights/priviledges/freedoms as straight married couples do. Is this the "agenda" you are referring to? If so, then we are guilty as charged.

Of the four points you mentioned above, the only real quibbles I have are: 1.) Your designation of "already strained" for the infertility resources in this country. I stated that and you chose to ignore my point. 2.) Your claim about changing sex education. If you mean teaching that some people are gay and this is as valid for them as being straight is for the majority, I agree that this is part of the "agenda". If you are implying some conspiracy to teach kids there are no differences between the two and that they should check out homosexuality to see if they like it (as some have stated), then I disagree.

I apologize in advance if this sounds terse, but your last post seems confrontational and implies dishonesty on my part. I think that is unwarranted. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood or misrepresented your views. Perhaps, in light of what I've wrote, you could re-state your points.

[ August 10, 2004, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tristan
Member
Member # 1670

 - posted      Profile for Tristan   Email Tristan         Edit/Delete Post 
This is a very interesting discussion. I have a question for enjeeo and anyone else who agree with her that "there is no question that [the changes advocated by the gay agenda] would fundamentally alter the way society approaches marriage, adoption, and education." When you say this, do you speak only about the obvious fact that these instution now will accomodate homosexuals or do you imagine that the changes somehow also would fundamentally affect the heterosexual society's enjoyment of these institutions? Because if you mean the former a convincing argument could be made that granting homosexuals equal access here is, in fact, only letting them go on with their lives affecting no one but themselves; if you mean the latter, it begs the question exactly what these effects are and how they would be detrimental to society.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
enjeeo
Member
Member # 2336

 - posted      Profile for enjeeo   Email enjeeo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What I'm asking is what is it about me as a homosexual that is a detriment to society at large? Why does something need to be done about about me at all? How is society diminished in the least if I continue my life as I am living it until the day I die?
KarlEd

This is the post I was referring to in the first place. The only point I was making was that the question of how homosexuality is detrimental to society (in some people's eyes) is a much more wide-ranging discussion than you continuing to live your life as you choose. It's like asking your reluctunt dad for the car keys and saying, 'how's it going to hurt the car to have me sitting in it?' when really you know that your dad is more concerned about the fact that you've expressed a desire to take it over to your friend's house and paint it a different colour and modify the engine.

The issues I listed were not my issues. They were examples of some of the wider-ranging issues that come up.

In regards to the 'resources under strain' comment, I didn't ignore it. I commented on the situation in Australia and in my mind I guess I felt like it was clear that the reason women can't get access to these resources unless they are physically infertile is because of the waiting lists, etc (ie strained resources). It wasn't stated specifically, sorry about that. Sometimes you need someone else to read something before you realise that it didn't read as you thought it did.

Sorry if I got annoyed. I made this one and only point, only to find myself writing the next three posts about points I hadn't made and didn't want to make, because I happened to use them as examples of something else. But it's not worth getting annoyed over. It's the nature of discussion boards. Sorry.

For the record my stance on homosexuality is that gays should have exactly the same civil rights as everyone else, but that churches (as voluntary organisations that people choose to be members of) should retain the right to follow their doctrine (eg not being legally bound to recognise same sex marriages just as they are not legally bound to recognise de facto marriages). I want my friends to have the security of knowing that they can visit their partner in hospital (even if it's family only), or not have to go to court if their partner dies to retain custody of kids they have raised who happen to be biologically their partner's. These are things that they should not have to worry about.

Again, sorry if it got snarky. I didn't intentionally ignore anything you said. I'm sorry if I thought you intentionally ignored what I said. There are some things I haven't addressed but to be honest that's because I never wanted to in the first place. I don't want to waste time hashing out the whole sex ed debate when all I was saying was 'for example for some people the changes to sex education in schools is one of the wider issues'. Deciding what exactly those changes may or may not be is up to that group that see it as issue AND want to discuss it. Of course NOT clarifying what you mean with examples will also warrant criticism. Catch 22. Which is why I'm going to bow out now and go look for a topic I really feel like hashing over. [Smile]

Posts: 2451 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
enjeeo
Member
Member # 2336

 - posted      Profile for enjeeo   Email enjeeo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
When you say this, do you speak only about the obvious fact that these institutions now will accomodate homosexuals or do you imagine that the changes somehow also would fundamentally affect the heterosexual society's enjoyment of these institutions? Because if you mean the former a convincing argument could be made that granting homosexuals equal access here is, in fact, only letting them go on with their lives affecting no one but themselves; if you mean the latter, it begs the question exactly what these effects are and how they would be detrimental to society.
Tristan

Saw your question only after writing the post above, so here's an answer for you. Firstly, I don't agree with you that a convincing argument can be made that fundamentally changing the way society approaches (particularly in the legal sense) marriage, adoption and education amounts to nothing more that letting people get on with their lives affecting no-one. All such fundamental changes affect the whole of society. Giving women the vote affected more than women, ending slavery affected more than slaves and slave owners, introducing the concept (and fact) of a minimum wage affected more than low-end workers and their employers.

Secondly, it doesn't necessarily beg that question. You've given two possible outcomes.
- the changes extend only to accomodating gays and nothing really changes for heterosexuals (as I've said above I don't agree this is possible)
- the changes change things such that heterosexuals' enjoyment of these institutions is affected - and the question you say follows naturally implies that their enjoyment will be detrimentally affected. Forgive me if I misunderstood.
But there's a third possibility you haven't listed. What if the changes enhance heterosexuals' enjoyment of these institutions?

Posts: 2451 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for that reply.
quote:
For the record my stance on homosexuality is that gays should have exactly the same civil rights as everyone else, but that churches (as voluntary organisations that people choose to be members of) should retain the right to follow their doctrine (eg not being legally bound to recognise same sex marriages just as they are not legally bound to recognise de facto marriages). I want my friends to have the security of knowing that they can visit their partner in hospital (even if it's family only), or not have to go to court if their partner dies to retain custody of kids they have raised who happen to be biologically their partner's. These are things that they should not have to worry about.

It sounds like we have pretty much the same views on this. Maybe we could have avoided misunderstanding if I had clarified my own position better. The part you quoted above I explained in a follow up post as my attempt to put some humanity into the discussion. It bugs me a little that gay-related topics get discussed in such theoretical and clinical terms on this board as if it were an academic game when to some of us on the forum these questions shape our daily lives. I think that is forgotten quite a bit around here. It's easy to say that "gays are furthering the collapse of the family" (or society or whatever) but harder for some people to say "Karl is furthering the collapse of the family". But to me they are the same contention. If such people can't tell me how I as a gay man fit into their theory of gay men, perhaps it is their theory that needs revision.

I was not trying to imply that the questions were all simple and that they wouldn't affect society. I thought that was clear. Then reading your post which seemed to say that there was this agenda above and beyond what I am professing and that my question was dishonest I couldn't help but think you were implying something sinister. And "agenda" so often is used in social discussions to mean some sinister ulterior motive a group has other than what they are publicly seeking.

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2