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 » Study finds that homophobia is likely a result of repressed homosexuality (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Study finds that homophobia is likely a result of repressed homosexuality
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
If homosexuality is natural, it is a result of genetics. There must be an inherited gene that quite naturally leads to a homosexual offspring. That offsping was not intended to reproduce. The intolerance of society forcing them into an unatural relationship wich propogates genetics that were not intended to replicate.

Either it is natural and self defeating or a chosen behavior. The law of natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics. The intolerance of society forcing a born homosexual to live a hetero life would propogate these genes and increase the homosexual population. Either it is a choice or genetic. Either it is natural or unatural. You cannot deny both.

Have you considered the possibility that homosexuality is caused by a sex selected gene on the female line? It is entirely possible that a gene that helps women in some way also causes homosexuality in some of their sons. Such a gene would not breed out of the population and might even become more common over time.
Natural selection in not anywhere near as simple as you mistakenly seem to think it is.

Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Human sexuality isn't a black and white division. It is more of the scale, a matter of degree.

Some people are probably born with the tendencies, some are shaped that way due to positive or negative influences in their lives.

And your argument fals flat because it doesn't address bisexual people.


We have as much chance of breeding homosexuality of out humanity as we do of breeding stupidity out of it. And less of a reason to want to, IMO.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
Not speaking specifically about homosexuality, but:

quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
If homosexuality is natural, it is a result of genetics. There must be an inherited gene that quite naturally leads to a homosexual offspring...The law of natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics.

False. This assumes that it is caused by a single gene. If it is genetic, it could be caused by several genes working in concert, which would exponentially increase natural selection's difficulty in eliminating it.

quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Either it is natural and self defeating or a chosen behavior...Either it is a choice or genetic. Either it is natural or unatural.

Patently false. Few things that are genetic are 100% heritable.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post 
You can delete posts.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
thx
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dobbie
Member
Member # 3881

 - posted      Profile for Dobbie           Edit/Delete Post 
Don't delete it. Everything you just said is perfectly correct, no matter what Glue says.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
No, he was referring to the fact that I had accidentally made a double post, which I have since deleted. [Smile]
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
So was Dobbie, he was just being clever.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post 
Haha
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Terry O'Brien
Member
Member # 12014

 - posted      Profile for Terry O'Brien   Email Terry O'Brien         Edit/Delete Post 
Homosexuality is caused by gayness.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
If homosexuality is natural, it is a result of genetics. There must be an inherited gene that quite naturally leads to a homosexual offspring...The law of natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics.

False. This assumes that it is caused by a single gene. If it is genetic, it could be caused by several genes working in concert, which would exponentially increase natural selection's difficulty in eliminating it.
Another thing. This also assumes that any genes that express homosexuality have no other function. Such genes may provide other benefits that natural selection would consider valuable.

For example, there is circumstantial evidence that the genes that make one susceptible to malaria also make one resistant to sickle-cell anemia. Genetic susceptibility to tuberculosis may confer resistance to osteoperosis. Genetic susceptibility to cholera may confer resistance to cystic fibrosis.

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For example, there is circumstantial evidence that the genes that make one susceptible to malaria also make one resistant to sickle-cell anemia.
I think this is the other way around, sickle-cell anemia makes one resistant to malaria.

Link

From the article,

"Sickle trait provides a survival advantage over people with normal hemoglobin in regions where malaria is endemic. Sickle cell trait provides neither absolute protection nor invulnerability to the disease. Rather, people (and particularly children) infected with P. falciparum are more likely to survive the acute illness if they have sickle cell trait. When these people with sickle cell trait procreate, both the gene for normal hemoglobin and that for sickle hemoglobin are transmitted into the next generation."

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, and the evidence isn't circumstantial, but well-substantiated. Having the trait increases one's ability to survive malaria.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I think this is the other way around, sickle-cell anemia makes one resistant to malaria.

Ah yes. Thanks.

I think I also misread my source about CF. Actually, susceptibility to cystic fibrosis may confer resistance to typhoid.

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
Related to the original topic: http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/outrage/

Looks interesting.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:
Related to the original topic: http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/outrage/

Looks interesting.

Not to me it doesn't. I have a hard time believing that movie will come anywhere close to objectivity. But perhaps they will have more than just the testimonies of guys willing to sit in front of a camera and say they had sex with those politicians.

Also why does it surprise anybody that if a male politician is willing to have affairs with men outside of his marriage that he would not support marriage for same sex couples? I wouldn't be especially surprised if an adulterer congressman voted against legislation that makes divorce more difficult or more easy, he can be made out to be a hypocrite either way.

I just don't really see this movie adding anything meaningful to the dialogue, it's pretty clear that there are hypocrites in Washington.

edited for grammar.

[ April 27, 2009, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Also why does it surprise anybody that if a male politician is willing to have affairs with men outside of his marriage that he would not support marriage for same sex couples? I wouldn't be especially surprised if an adulterer congressman voted against legislation that makes divorce more difficult or more easy, he's can be made out to be a hypocrite either way.

I just don't really see this movie adding anything meaningful to the dialogue, it's pretty clear that there are hypocrites in Washington.

Seriously? Is there any other field of contention with an equivalent proportion of closeted opponents? It's not even on the same level as Strom Thurmond having black mistresses -- having self-loathing gay men leading the charge against homosexual rights is like the Dave Chappelle skit with a black KKK member.

http://realvideosite.com/Comedy_102_Dave-Chapelle---Black-white-supremacist-clip

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Also why does it surprise anybody that if a male politician is willing to have affairs with men outside of his marriage that he would not support marriage for same sex couples? I wouldn't be especially surprised if an adulterer congressman voted against legislation that makes divorce more difficult or more easy, he's can be made out to be a hypocrite either way.

I just don't really see this movie adding anything meaningful to the dialogue, it's pretty clear that there are hypocrites in Washington.

Seriously? Is there any other field of contention with an equivalent proportion of closeted opponents? It's not even on the same level as Strom Thurmond having black mistresses -- having self-loathing gay men leading the charge against homosexual rights is like the Dave Chappelle skit with a black KKK member.

http://realvideosite.com/Comedy_102_Dave-Chapelle---Black-white-supremacist-clip

Yes, this particular phenomenon is not especially strange IMHO. People railing on divorce while simultaneously being adulterers is one such example. Drug opponents who used when they were younger or even currently, women fighting against modern feminism, slave owners vehemently opposing slavery.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
People tend to rail against the things they hate about themselves.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
I would not at all want to be in the position of a person whose natural desires and whose fervent faith lead him in two completely opposite directions. That kind of contradiction has no easy solution, and no matter what you choose, someone in the world whose good opinion you care very much about will think you're a terrible person and a hypocrite.

It's an interesting problem to ponder, but all this gleeful fascination and willingness to throw accusations at people whose opinions you find inconvenient is out of place and ... not admirable.

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Puppy, I think that were a person in such a situation only struggling to cope with his or her own natural desires that most people would have only sympathy or perhaps pity for them. It is when that struggle manifests itself as quest to impose one's own will onto others that it is met with contempt.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
Only to the degree to which you find that action contemptible with or without the underlying struggle.

In any case, though, I think that the original accusation Lalo attempted in this thread is pretty hilarious, and would be to anyone who knows Card even slightly. I mean, unless you think he's also a closeted Meryl Streep fan and a lover of pretentious literary fiction, I don't think you need accusations of deep-rooted hypocrisy to explain his passionate defense of an opinion.

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Puppy:
I mean, unless you think he's also a closeted Meryl Streep fan and a lover of pretentious literary fiction, I don't think you need accusations of deep-rooted hypocrisy to explain his passionate defense of an opinion.

I'm not sure if these statements are joined with your principle argument -- but if they are, I don't think you understand homosexuals at all. It's not a culture. You might as well say that Card doesn't have black ancestry because he doesn't like fried chicken.

In any case, Card is one of the cases where I feel sympathy, not anger. His essays railing against homosexual marriage have a nearly wistful air, describing homosexuality as a temptation we must resist. Whether he's gay or not, I hope he can someday accept homosexuality as okay.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
That said, if he's at all misty-eyed about Bea Arthur, I think you have your answer. My Facebook friends list is filled with mourning homos.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
So a religious person describing something as a "temptation" means they have particular wistful feelings towards that thing. Makes perfect sense. You clearly know exactly what you're talking about [Smile]
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I think that we tend to suspect people who spend a lot of time fighting homosexuality of having homosexual tendencies because, otherwise, it is a little odd to be that concerned about other people's sins that don't directly effect you.

We tend to overlook another explanation, of course, which is that they like to focus on sins that they don't share so they can feel smug.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think that we tend to suspect people who spend a lot of time fighting homosexuality of having homosexual tendencies because, otherwise, it is a little odd to be that concerned about other people's sins that don't directly effect you.

Another explanation, of course, is that they like to focus on sins that they don't share so they can feel smug.

Or perhaps they have come to the conclusion (whether rightly or wrongly) that homosexuality is something that warrants that much attention, either because they feel uniquely suited for responding to it, or have been persuaded that it requires that much attention.

I have a friend who I've discussed homosexuality with numerous times (to little effect), he still feels convinced that in terms of moral degeneracy, homosexuality is right up there with adultery and premarital sex, just short of murder in terms of revulsion. Were he a politician, I have no doubt he would take a very vocal hard line against SSM and other gay rights issues. He still feels they need to be rehabilitated, to say nothing of granting them equal rights.

I am certain he is not a closet homosexual, he isn't smug so much as certain he is right and that in being right homosexuality is destroying society and bringing God's vengeance closer.

In short, false religiously based conclusions can also cause one to overreact to homosexuality.
-----

I've actually got a difficult problem in regards to this topic I've been wracking my brains over. My birthday dinner is this week on Wednesday and I wanted to invite one of my co-workers (who is gay) and his boyfriend to my dinner. This friend of mine (in the interest of full disclosure I'll admit that he my brother) I would also like to bring to the dinner. I spoke previously with my brother and said I was thinking of inviting these two and said that I would not invite them unless he promised not to be condescending, spiteful, critical, or rude to them. He said he could manage that, but that he could not tolerate them showing any public displays of affection. I told them that was an unreasonable request as they are in a committed relationship. After a lot of back and forth he finally agreed that perhaps it would be good for him to see a gay couple (he has never met one in real life) so that he could see if his attitudes are correct and to observe if the two of them are happy in their relationship and finally good people. I confess I have a little difficulty trusting my brother will keep his word as he has difficulty inhibiting what his mind wants to say under certain circumstances, (he has had this problem his entire life) and so I'm worried that if I invite everyone there is a high potential for offense to be given.

Right now I'm leaning to not inviting my co-worker and his boyfriend and instead going on a double date with them and my wife in the very near future. But perhaps I am missing a good opportunity for my brother to lose some of his vitriol towards people who happen to be homosexuals. But then again I might be doing my friend a disservice by putting him in a situation where he has to endure (whether intentioned or not) critical behavior at an event that is supposed to be fun.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Are you comfortable enough with this friend to explain the situation and ask whether he is willing to risk it?

ETA: I am not saying that those are the only possible reasons, but the impulse to activism usually has some kind of an emotional hook. For example, I believe in the correctness of certain environmental issues, but I am not emotionally attached enough to spend the time and effort on them as I am on issues where I am emotionally involved. It is hard to figure out the emotional involvement of people who make anti-gay activism a major focus.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So a religious person describing something as a "temptation" means they have particular wistful feelings towards that thing.
Well, no. I think he's referring to the couple of times Card has written that same-sex marriages must be tempting to young men, since it's easier for men to understand each other and there's not as much responsibility for them to worry about.

--------

quote:
I am certain he is not a closet homosexual.
Why?

quote:
But then again I might be doing my friend a disservice by putting him in a situation where he has to endure (whether intentioned or not) critical behavior at an event that is supposed to be fun.
I think, at the very least, you should ask your friend if he's willing to potentially be an object lesson.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
What they said. You need to tell your friend what he might be walking into and make sure he's comfortable with it. Nothing less would be acceptable, IMO.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
Tough situation, BB.

One way to think of it: If you have two guests in mind, and you're principally worried about the behavior of Guest A, why would you then exclude Guest B?

I know it's not quite that simple. [Wink]

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Puppy:
So a religious person describing something as a "temptation" means they have particular wistful feelings towards that thing. Makes perfect sense. You clearly know exactly what you're talking about [Smile]

If someone refers to an act as a temptation, I think the implication is that it is tempting to them. Doesn't make it so, of course, but it's not an illogical jump to make.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks guys, that's good advice. I'll probably speak with my co-worker friend in just alittle bit and see how he feels about the situation, it should also give him time to ask his boyfriend how he feels as well.

scifibum: You're right it's not that simple. Guest A is my brother, who I love dearly and who has alot of difficulty in social situations (please no smirks that his stance on homosexuality is the reason) and hence has few friends. I feel partially responsible to assist him by making sure he feels loved and spends less time sad at home than more.

Guest B is a recent friend that I have met through work who I find I enjoy interacting with immensely. I've met his boyfriend who is also a nice individual, and I am inviting him to my birthday so that our friendship becomes that much more close.

But in any case I'll speak to my co-worker and probably my brother once again depending on what said co-worker says.

----
Tom: Obviously the whole is greater than the sum of its' parts and I recognize that you can never be absolutely certain in regards to somebody elses' life, but here are some reasons. He does not act as if he is sexually attracted to men, he very closely subscribes to our religion and strongly believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. He has only shown an interest in women in regards to dating and commitment. We have a very open relationship with each other, and he has not said anything that raises any red flags in that regard. Again it's all the subtle nuances of his character that come together but I am certain that if you got to know him you would see the likelihood of him being heterosexual would be substantially higher than otherwise.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
quote:
Originally posted by Puppy:
So a religious person describing something as a "temptation" means they have particular wistful feelings towards that thing. Makes perfect sense. You clearly know exactly what you're talking about [Smile]

If someone refers to an act as a temptation, I think the implication is that it is tempting to them. Doesn't make it so, of course, but it's not an illogical jump to make.
I dunno. I think the concept of the "tempter" who would try to persuade anyone to commit any sin is significant. Of course individuals are more prone to some temptations than others... but I think "temptation" has a pretty generic sense in common usage that doesn't really imply proclivity.

Yet as Tom notes OSC HAS asserted that it's easier to get along with people of the same sex, and in context pretty clearly was asserting that SSM would be easier on the participants, all else being equal, than opposite sex marriage. I think this implies that OSC either experiences more trouble with heterosexual relationships than with same sex relationships, or has observed this in others - but really the obvious explanation is that sexual attraction complicates relationships, and would do so no matter the gender combination. (In fact this, to me, would tend toward disproving any suspicion of closeted desire - because it just doesn't make sense that repressed feelings would co-exist with ease of interaction.)

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Again it's all the subtle nuances of his character that come together but I am certain that if you got to know him you would see the likelihood of him being heterosexual would be substantially higher than otherwise.
Without comment otherwise, notice that 75 is substantially higher than 25. I think you probably wanted your sentence to be a bit stronger than it actually came out.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Again it's all the subtle nuances of his character that come together but I am certain that if you got to know him you would see the likelihood of him being heterosexual would be substantially higher than otherwise.
Without comment otherwise, notice that 75 is substantially higher than 25. I think you probably wanted your sentence to be a bit stronger than it actually came out.
Not really. I subscribe to the idea that most people are not completely homosexual or completely heterosexual, rather, if there is a sliding scale where we make absolute heterosexuality a 1 and absolute homosexuality a 10, that people would mostly be in the 2-8 range. I don't think there is necessarily a neat bell curve or that humanity's mean is a 5 on that scale. I'd put my brother at a 1 or a 2 on that scale. I think at my gayest I'd put myself at a 3.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh man.. it's so tempting to pry....
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Oh man.. it's so tempting to pry....

You have my email. [Razz] Up until my early 20's I would have probably insisted that I was a 1.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think at my gayest I'd put myself at a 3.
You should put that on a t-shirt.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
I had a drama professor explain once, "There are only two reason most people are against gay people. One, they hit on you too often. Two, they don't hit on you enough."

Sure, there are significant religious reasons to be against homosexuality. There are arguably a few civic reasons. However, the above two, possibly extending it to include loved ones, are the only two reasons to be against the people themselves.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Terry O'Brien:
Homosexuality is caused by gayness.

I saw this homosexual guy, and I was like, "you're totally gay!"
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, BB, I might - I'll have to think about what my reaction would be - be more inclined to uninvite the brother and keep the homosexual couple.

Mostly for the simple reason that, if your own brother can't assure you sufficiently that he'll be respectful to you and your family on your birthday, of all days, well...I guess to me that's a pretty serious slight. The doing of it, or the not sincerely promising not to do it, that is.

Your house, your birthday, your table, your bread to be broken. Unless this homosexual couple has done something specifically against your brother, he should be a good guest and not be a jackass to your other invited guests.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If someone refers to an act as a temptation, I think the implication is that it is tempting to them. Doesn't make it so, of course, but it's not an illogical jump to make.
It is absolutely illogical. Understandable, perhaps, but certainly illogical [Smile]

My religion forbids the consumption of alcohol. I've never had a drink of it, I hate the smell, and I have a sensitive enough palate that is doubt I could ever start.

When addressing the issue of alcoholism, however, I would naturally very frequently refer to the "temptation to drink". It's a very real temptation for a lot of people, and it's worth discussing, even if I myself don't experience it.

I think it's been well established that homosexual desire is one of those things that only a minority fraction of the population experiences to a life-changing degree. If you belong to a group that considers this desire a "temptation" to be avoided, it's fair to assume that most people talking about this "temptation" will not have actually experienced it in any significant way.

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
But your dad's argument, specifically, was that young men would marry each other in enough numbers that the tradition of marriage itself would be forgotten or considered outmoded. How do you reconcile that with the idea that he thinks it's a rare temptation?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I have a sensitive enough palate that is doubt I could ever start.
Incidentally, this is what I originally said about both alcohol and coffee.

Both end up entirely palatable and desired for much the same reasons as each other =)

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Well I spoke with my co-worker about the whole conundrum and it seems like he and his boyfriend are on board with going. I spoke with my brother and he has to my satisfaction promised not help create an argument on the issue. I think this years birthday dinner is going to be even better than last years, which is all I can really hope for. [Smile]
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But your dad's argument, specifically, was that young men would marry each other in enough numbers that the tradition of marriage itself would be forgotten or considered outmoded. How do you reconcile that with the idea that he thinks it's a rare temptation?
He's made a lot of arguments on the subject, and it's fairly common for people to take his weirdest experimental ideas and make them out to be his primary focus. To my memory, the "men will want to marry each other because it's easy" idea was something he explored in a single essay, and which turned out to be pretty unpersuasive. I don't see the kind of "easiness" you're talking about trumping biological imperatives like the desire to mate with whatever your brain says you should try to mate with.

Certainly, that argument doesn't seem to be the one that Lalo is citing with his insinuations.

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't see the kind of "easiness" you're talking about trumping biological imperatives like the desire to mate with whatever your brain says you should try to mate with.
Well, neither do I. That was, I suspect, Lalo's point.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Earendil18
Member
Member # 3180

 - posted      Profile for Earendil18   Email Earendil18         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
[QB]I am certain he is not a closet homosexual, he isn't smug so much as certain he is right and that in being right homosexuality is destroying society and bringing God's vengeance closer.

Vengeance? I thought he promised not to do something like again? Either way, it's a scarily irrational view, which, while may not be his opinion...makes me wonder if that fear is what's fanning the flames out there today. "Uh-oh, when Daddy comes home he's gonna be real angry with us." Why else would people take such a personal charge?

God: I said no homosex.
Religious: But...WE didn't do it!
God: Really? But you stood by and let others engage in it.
Religious: Honest! Please, don't spank us, we tried! They wouldn't listen! :sob:
God: TOO BAD. *eats everyone*

Either way...in regards to whether he's closeted or not, you won't be able tell. Hiding is what we learn to do from a very early age, out of fear and for survival purposes.

It is incredibly narrow to say "nevermind competition for resources, economies, environmental factors, technological factors, etc etc, societies collapse because of homosexuality. (BB, I'm replying to something written earlier not you [Smile] )

What's destroying society (if we view it as such) is larger than homosexuality. Fear of the other, ourselves, our bodies, our thoughts, our judgments, others judgments, technology, vengeful deities, love, suffering, diminishing resources, ineffective/outdated ideas, conflicts between groups of those ideas, growing pains of globalization, socio-economic stratification, etc. It's funny, the world is rigged to continuously change while we are rigged to fear change.

Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   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