silverwhisper's tags:
silverwhisper's most popular posts:
silverwhisper reads (746):
Who's reading silverwhisper (788):

about homosexuality

silverwhisper posted on Aug 04, 2006 | views: 967 | Tags: Homosexuality, gays, behavior, gay, society, irony, Bash, gayness, heterosexuality, nature vs nurture vs BS, gay marriage, chemicals, homo sapiens, The gays
i was commenting on a post by favored when thenack and i began discussing homosexuality. rather than take favored's post way off-topic, i thought it better to address the matter in my own blog.

in that thread...

thenack quoth
i am a christian and i do believe being gay is not natural, but its no more wrong than having sex out of wedlock, or cheating on you spouse. gay marriage would however imply that you will be continuously partaking in this, therefore there is no repentance etc.

here's where we disagree, nack. you are assuming that marriage = sex. why should that be true? marriage isn't a celebration of sex. marriage is about love. you can argue that maybe marriage is about kids--which means older couples shouldn't re-marry, nor should infertile couples. but you really can't argue that it's not about love. this is why i said your position was ignorant: i don't think you've really thought this through.

thenack quoth
personally i don't think there are many people who are really "homosexual" 99.99% of cases i promise you that person would be able to have a heterosexual relationship and be very happy, if they were happy with themselves and their relationship with god. the problem is that the world is marred by our sins and this complicates matters. sexual issues are difficult and this is just one of them. people have to deal with them constantly and feeling gay is just one of them. we have to learn to put erotic love below godly love on our priority scale. yes i can find a man attractive, what happens after that is in my head, the connection to sex is put there by me. just as would be the case if i looked at a sexy women. if i immediately think "i want to have sex with that" i am doing the same thing, replacing the person with an object of my lust. i could think, hey shes pretty, and stop the train of thought right there, i do this cause i love my wife and i trust god that loving her is what will truly make me happy, not some experience that’s over in a couple of hours

that's goofy and also flies in the face of what scientists know about sexual attraction. you can find something aesthetically pleasing. OK, good. i can look at a car and find it aesthetically pleasing. that's a totally separate matter from finding something sexually attractive. looking at guys doesn't do it for me. looking at women does. it isn't put there by you: it's put there by everything in your head, a lot of which you have no conscious control over.

but even so, you're confusing the nature of homosexuality: it isn't primarily about sex, just as heterosexuality isn't primarily about sex. i invite you to review a previous blog entry i posted a little while back.

ed

send to a friend del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • Chimaera said on Aug 04, 2006....
    I have some issues with both of your positions and some general issues with some of the common arguments for the immorality of homosexuality. 1) Marriage may not be solely about sex, but I would argue that sex is one of the key parts of a romantic relationship and as such a fundamanetal part of marriage. Sex is what differentiates a friendship from a romantic relationship. Yes, there are examples of sexless marriages, but even many of those still implicate sex by its absence: there is often still the expectation of fidelity. Physical intimacy is a key part of a romantic relationship, barring physical and/or medical issues. Does sex imply a romantic relationship? No, clearly not -- but if a married couple aren't having sex, it's the exception, not the rule. ed, I don't think that your objection to theknack's characterization of sex and marriage is relevantly correct; yes, we can point to specific examples of non-sex marriages, but by and large he's correct: a gay marriage is generally a good indication of a whole wack of unrepentant gay sex. Whether or not it needs repenting is a separate issue. 2) theknacks formulation of homosexuality as pathology is just not borne out by the science: not the biology, not the psychology, not by any of it. Homosexuality occurs in nature... Now, this is trivially true in that there are homosexual humans and human beings are members of the set of natural things, but even engaging the term in the pragmatic sense intended, it is not true that homosexuality is unnatural. People confuse the terms 'normal' and 'natural' and often mistake things like 'atypical' and 'low-frequency' with not normal or unnatural. Approximately 10% of the mammalian population appears to be homosexual. Cats and dogs, sea otters and dolphins. Homosexuality arises outside of human beings and appears to be a part of the natural world, and is not merely the product of an overdeveloped frontal lobe. Moreover, homosexuality is not a mental pathology, nor is it the product of a mental pathology. Homosexual behaviour can be induced as a result of extrinsic factors, but true homosexuality is an intrinsic sexual orientation and is not subject to casual revision. Nobody chooses to be gay. People often fall for the nature/nurture red herring on this one, some fighting for the notion of homosexuality as being genetic (which is confused with meaning innate and fixed), while others argue that it is all abotu nurture (which is confused with extrinsic and flexible -- i.e. susceptible to choice). This is blatantly incorrect: firstly very, very few traits are either strictly genetic or strictly nurture (which itself is a confused term, given that it only a subset of environment). Consider the following equation: P = G + E + (G x E), where P is phenotype, G is genotype and E is environment. What this essentially says is that the phenotype (the organism, with its complete set of traits) is the product of genotype (its genetic information), the environment (everything external to the organism) and the interaction of genes and environment. The overwhelming majority of the heavy lifting is done by the G x E part of the equation. But extrinsic doesn't mean susceptible to choice. A homosexual doesn't choose to be attracted to members of the same gender anymore than a heterosexual chooses to be attracted to members of the opposite gender. Sexual orientation is, as best we can tell, the result of processes well outside the scope of self-control. Some people can attempt to control or modify their behaviour, but not having sex with members of the same gender doesn not make a queer straight and having sex with members of the same gender does not make a straight queer. More later, maybe... forgive the verbose rambling and incoherence...
  • JadeLondon said on Aug 04, 2006....
    I am heterosexual, so I would be hard pressed to speak for someone that wasn't. I can say what I think, however. Considering thenack's point of view: I can see how you think that sexual inclinations can be controlled by thought replacement (i.e. asexual thoughts as opposed to sexual). Psychologists such as behavior analysts employ this technique quite often. Just not with consistant results. More & more information about the brain is uncovered everyday. One such discovery has been the effect of chemicals (such as neurotransmitters & sex hormones) on sexual development & preference. To silver: I guess I am slightly middle-of-the-road on this. As I mentioned to thenack, there have been instances in which behavior therapy has worked, but not often. Even so, it does not solve the underlying "problem". And I agree when you say a marriage is isn't exclusively about sex. The flesh will weaken & wither. But love can transcend time to live forever. I do not understand what the big hoopla about gay marriage is. I am as straight as a pin, yet I do not mind. Why not? Everyone wants to be loved. Some say that homosexuality is a sin against God. Even if it is, does that mean we have the right to judge? It has also been said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Live, love & let live.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 04, 2006....
    i hate it when you're right, chimaera. [trout-smacks the morphic one] that said, the focus on repentance is still wrong. should the obese be physically barred from eating? after all, gluttony is a sin. ed
  • Chimaera said on Aug 04, 2006....
    Wow... you're life must be one of unending misery, ed... 'cause as you know, I'm always right :D ;) As to the point of "successful" behaviour modification, I would *really* like ot know what the criteria for success are...
  • thenack said on Aug 04, 2006....
    Hey Silver this post is turning out to be really great, thanks also to Chimaera. I would like to get into some detail but can't right now. Hopefully you'll hear from me soon and both of you have made some really good points, just a quick thing. In using hte word pathological to describe my view of being gay, does this word mean a kind of sickness or mental affliction? In that case I did not mean what I said to sound like that and often think faster than I can translate into english. I will clarify but I kind of ment we are all a little twisted in some area of life, and I think many gay ppl just have this twist in their sexual preference. From the original question, I meant to say that I think in some cases it will be possible for a Christian to not always be gay and live according to the Bible in this way. But every train of though, has an underlining presuposition. So will need longer reply hopefully soon. cheers TN
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 04, 2006....
    chimaera: jeez, i'm having trouble fitting my comments into the form on account of your great big ego. :p nack: see you when we see you. the psych-talk was all chimaera, though: you'll have to ask him for the clarification. of course, i'm fairly certain he'll be doing that w/out any prompting from little old me. :> ed
  • timmydelatorre said on Aug 04, 2006....
    Here was my response to that one "...Wow - I havent posted in one long minute. but as a gay puerto rican male living the city of NY, you just have to know I'm going to respond to this one! I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. For me, that's all they are whether for or against gay relationships. To be honest, it will never change the way I feel about myself. thenack - I do appreciate your thoughts as well. But here's a little more enlightenment. I do love the lord, and I most certainly do love MYSELF! There is no doubt about that - so don't ever get that twisted. I love me, my family & friends love me, and I know for a fact the lord loves me - just for who I am. I do believe however I was not born this way, but no one has influenced me either!!!! I believe we are all born blank canvas's, and we aquire different colors to paint with as we get older. Some people are just blessed with more color at an early age! They under- stand themselves before people even know what understandthing themselves really means. But there's a whome other issue here, and its not about being gay or straight. Its about beliefs and making your beliefs to be the right one to go by. There's muslims, there's Christians, there's buddhists, etc. As a Puerto Rican, I can trace back my culture to the Taino Indians who were not people of RELIGION!!! Way before Catholicism was spread throught our little country by the Europeans/Spaniards and killed of our tribes! They were free spirits, believing everything and everyone had a purpose in life. Actually gay male/females were considered in great respect that they could relate with more than one sex. But when it comes to being natural/unnatural, relationships between human beings is always a natural thing whether male or female! We were all created as humans first, before we were labeled with what religion we were apart of. Thats more uunnatural if you ask me. Religion is more about choosing and being influenced to be apart of, not loving another human being!!!!!!.." I think this is pretty much all I have to say. I think we're all making this a little to technical here. Who cares what science says, who cares what the bibles says! I'm going to love who I want when I want. And yes I have had ses just for sex, but I've done that even with women! So what! All my brothers are straight and they are the biggest womanizers I know! My relationship has lasted longer than theirs, and will still continue to because regardless of the sex, I am in love. Yes the attraction was there at first, but who doesn't need that at first!!
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 04, 2006....
    nice to see you again, timmy. :> ed
  • Chimaera said on Aug 04, 2006....
    My ego is in correct proportion to my abilites... if one were to use a logarithmic scale :D knackster, you're correct in your judgment as to how I used the word 'pathological'... if that's not what you mean, though, I'm left somewhat curious by your characterization of "a little twist"... I'm finding your formulation of this all a little vague. We can classify behaviours and mental states into two broad categories: pathological and non-pathological, that is healthy or diseased. This is an amoral axis of judgment, and merely refers to the sound functioning of mind. Within the set of non-pathological behaviours and mental states we can begin to make personally relevant moral judgements (I'm assuming that we're all willing to allow some form of diminished capacity reasoning in the case of pathological behaviours and mental states). Are you saying that homosexuality is a non-pathological behaviour? On that point I would agree, but your characterization of unnatural would seem to conflict with that. Moreover, if you're going to characterize it as a non-pathological immoral behaviour, then we run into another problem: the simple fact of being non-pathological is not sufficient to imply choice -- pathology may imply that lack of choice, but that doesn't mean that the lack of pathology implies the opposite, if that's not too clunky (sorry, but I'm having an extremely ineloquent day). There are limits to our nature... I can't fly, because I lack the appropriate apparatus for such. That is outside of my choice and is clearly not a result of pathology. It seems to me that you have to reconcile your religious convictions regarding the immoral nature of homosexual behaviour (that appears to be the most charitable distinction I've seen made -- it's not a sin to be gay, it's just a sin to engage in gay sex) with the doctrine of free will. Moral prescription and judgment without free will and rational agency is vacuous, right? While I wouldn't presume to try and read your mind, it seems that the conviction that homosexuality is a choice is an attempt at reconciling those notions -- the Bible makes some pretty clear statements in terms of categorizing gay as bad, but if being gay isn't susceptible to choice, then there is an error, either in the Bible or in the interpretation of the Bible. If it's not a choice, then it's not validly susceptible to moral criticism. The Bible is infallible, ergo being gay is a choice. At least, that's kind of how I see the argument running. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the evidence clearly indicates that sexual orientation is *not* susceptible to choice. At this point, the only valid option left that preserves the integrity of the religious belief is to opt for interpetive error of the Bible. QED. Sorta... ;) :D
  • Lysander said on Aug 04, 2006....
    It's funny. I was just talking to Brent about how I will no longer argue homosexuality with people who come from a religious aspect in their argument. And here you are, dragging things through the mud, ed. Go you!
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 04, 2006....
    chimaera: sure, if you're talking about the [i]inverted[/i] log scale... :> lys: hey, you know me... :> ed
  • Chimaera said on Aug 04, 2006....
    That was kinda the point, ed... I was trying to be pomposuly self-deprecating ;)
  • tifa said on Aug 04, 2006....
    Here's a question for you. Nowadays, homosexuality seems to be getting more and more common. Is it because people are adopting the homosexual lifestyle? or is it because homosexuals are hiding less? Do you think the influence of society makes it so that more people are homosexuals? Homosexuality wants to become mainstream and homosexuals want to be treated just as equally as other people (correct me if i'm wrong, i'm hetero). So, do you think that events such as the Gay parade or the Outgames (olympics for gay people) helps that situation? Are homosexuals treating themselves differently as homosexuals or are they trying to make a point? I mean, you don't see heterosexual parades. heh. just a thought.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 04, 2006....
    sometimes i can't tell, chimaera: it's all the big words... :D [ducks] ed
  • Chimaera said on Aug 04, 2006....
    I guess it's back to Sesame Street for you, then ed... ;)
  • Chimaera said on Aug 04, 2006....
    It's not more common, it's just more visible. As society's attitude shifts, o so painfully slowly, to a more tolerant model, homosexuals are becoming more free to be who they are without fear or the need to hide. Some of the more exaggerated stuff is part of a repressed sub-culture fighting for acceptance from the rest of society while also trying to undo some of the damage done within... the self-hatred and fear and shame that used to be ubiquitous for homosexuals.
  • Lysander said on Aug 04, 2006....
    Hi Tifa, I would point you to the constant stream of Ads on TV and throughout the media as your constant Pride Parade. I would point you to TV shows, movies and books that support and honor heterosexuality as your Pride Parade. I would point you to festivals like Mardi Gras and the like as Straight Pride, a celebration of your sexuality. So heh back at ya! ^_^ So, if you suddenly find yourself on the back handed stick of the law for being straight, then I would figure you would be out trying to make changes for you and your fellows. There were gays in the past. Many of them hid, cuz they didn't want to get arrested or killed. Silly them. Since I am gay, I will tell you that Pride and Outgames are places where you don't have to worry about being bashed, or yelled at, or mocked, or called out for something as simple as a kiss or a hug to the one that you love. Contrary to many beliefs, it isn't about you. It isn't about heterosexuality at all. It is simply about have one chance to just be open without a ton of fear. If you want to work for a society where gays don't have to fear for their day to day life, then I am sure the Pride Parades and Outgames will vanish like yesterdays old bread.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 04, 2006....
    lys: there's that eloquence and dignity i've always admired. :> ed
  • tifa said on Aug 04, 2006....
    thanx for your input lysander. i have the feeling like you think I'm against homosexuals. I'm not, i was just wondering what people thought of those events. Alot of gay people, well at least in montreal, don't agree with the gay parade and the outgames because they feel like it is treating homosexuals differently. as for tv shows and the such, there is more and more homosexuality on tv nowadays. and also, we dont celebrate mardi gras in quebec, so, i wouldn't know about the straight pride you are refering to.
  • Lysander said on Aug 04, 2006....
    I try.
  • tifa said on Aug 04, 2006....
    treating homosexuals differently as in, they have to show themselves to be accepted. That's just what i've heard from my homosexual friends.
  • Lysander said on Aug 04, 2006....
    Well, I go by what is typed, so without clarifications, I will respond. The "heh" and "heterosexual parades" without disclaimers is leading. But the points are valid. There are more homosexuals on TV now. But, there are still a small minority, one that grows smaller every year. And in America, there is a constant fight about even having them on there at all, and if we are lucky, we won't get an MA rating for having gay content. Like a kiss. As for Pride, when the world stops treating us differently, when the world is safe and kids are kicked from their homes for being gay, then do away with them. But Pride is about community, about celebrating that which is hated more often in others. It is a reaction to being treated differently, to being pushed down. When that stops, it will stop. When gay people no longer feel that horrid isolation, that dark place of unknowing self hatred of being different and the very common knowledge that such a thing could get you killed, then do away with Pride. When atheletes aren't beaten by their teammates for being gay, or kicked off the team, then do away with Outgames. Until then, they are valid outlets to be who we are. Canada is above the curve. As things get better, these things become less vital. And it is certainly a discussion that gay groups go through as Pride comes around. Is this necessary? But when I look at small towns where people are afraid to march, when I hear stories of threats against people internationally, arrests that still happen, I stand with it being necessary and vital. We gained nothing by being hidden and disappearing from view once more will do us no good.
  • ALIENated said on Aug 04, 2006....
    I have not read much of anything above, but I bet I have heard it all before. This is just one of those agree to disagree deals. Seems like there are a lot of those these days. Eve, step away from that apple ... Eve!
  • Ajinia said on Aug 04, 2006....
    silver et al, I am a straight female, however, I have a homosexual aunt and a homosexual uncle (brother & sister) as well as friends who are homosexual and even a transgendered friend (born male, now female) who is in a same-sex marriage. Yes, marriage, because they were married before she became legally a woman. Knowing all of these people and the hell they have gone through in their lives, I can tell you that this is not something they chose. If they could, they would willing be straight, unfortunately it is not the way they are wired. Why on earth would ANYONE choose to be homosexual with all of the BS that goes along with it? No One. However, they have come to terms with their sexuality and I only wish others could too. I am a Christian, was born and raised Roman Catholic. Part of the reason that I left the Catholic church was because of their philosophy on homosexuals. God loves us all, isn't that what we are taught? Isn't God the only judge and jury? If that is so, then why does the Catholic church refuse to end their persecution of homosexuals? I'm sorry, this is somewhat of a button pushers with me. :) I could go on for hours about the things that are wrong with the Catholic church even though I still consider myself to be strongly Christian. And who on earth (or at least the USA) determined that only men and women can be married? We can't have our cake and eat it too. Either God is part of the legal system or he's not. If he's not, then the fact that the bible calls for marriage between a man and a woman has no bearing on a legal marriage. And as to the notion that homosexual couples are less stable than heterosexual couples, try telling that to my uncle who has been with his partner since the age of 19 - they are almost 60 now. Or my aunt who is celebrating her 15th anniversary with her partner - after trying for years to convince herself that she was heterosexual and finally after failed relationship after failed relationship - the longest of which was 2 years - found the person that she feels she can spend the rest of her life with, who simply happens to be another female. Sorry to go on for so long silver, but as I said, this issue pushes many buttons for me and I could probably debate this one for hours.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 04, 2006....
    ajinia: no apologies necessary, nor indeed, accepted. :> i actually [i]have[/i] argued this one for hours. and i've got witnesses. :> ed
  • ALIENated said on Aug 04, 2006....
    And how many minds have you changed? This, like so many issues, is not black and white. I think there are people born with an attraction for the same sex. I have a cousin-in-law that I absolute believe that about. I have known him just about all his life so I am a witness. However, I also know there are people that turn from that lifestyle every day. They can because with them it is just a lifestyle, they do have a choice. If we pick and choose our examples we can support either side of the born to be / chooses to be arguement. The church is just compelled to try to interpret what the Bible says and go with that. As I have said in other blogs, the Bible condemns promiscuity of any kind, I think, and I do not know of any specific mention of homosexuality. If we all spent as much time reading the Bible as we do misquoting what it says, we probably would not be having these conversations. Of course, we would also be bored silly. I could be wrong.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 04, 2006....
    alienated: IIRC, at last count it was three, including a southern baptist, although i can't claim the credit for any of those solely for myself. :> ed
  • Ajinia said on Aug 04, 2006....
    I know of one at least. :) It was a friend of mine who was appalled at the idea of a lesbian being in charge of the worship music at our church. (ELCA - Lutheran) Once I talked with her and got her to sit down and get to know the person, she slowly began to see that this was not something that was chosen, but was instead something to be endured (because of rampant homophobia). She has gone on to become a very good friend to this couple and has had her eyes and heart opened to the knowledge that homosexuals are not the devil incarnate.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 04, 2006....
    btw: alienated, people who deny their nature generally fail, IMX. ed
  • Chimaera said on Aug 04, 2006....
    Alienated... surely you recognize the irony inherent in trying to convince people that you can't convince people of anything?
  • hunter_boyce_chandler said on Aug 04, 2006....
    I'm just tired of the bashing. I resolve to never bash someone for their sexuality. I also resolve to never bash someone for their emotional heartfelt religious opposition to sexuality. This is a no win issue. Every time it is debated people are bashed. There doesn’t seem to be any tolerance on either side of the issue. Therefore I resolve to nevermore get in the middle of any argument over sexuality. My view is my own and you are not entitled to it. ....but If you gang up on an innocent person that just happens to believe something you don't, I just might have to cut you.
  • JadeLondon said on Aug 04, 2006....
    Silver--I am sorely offended that you did not respond to my comment! Did it offend or was it not worth a damn in context of your discussion? ;)
  • ALIENated said on Aug 04, 2006....
    I am with HBC. I am through discussing this subject. I am going to discuss UFOs.
  • LoriaAmnekia said on Aug 04, 2006....
    I just have one question to ask anyone who tells me that homosexuality is a choice. It has been proven that other creatures in the animal kingdom have homosexuality as well. I have two girl cats who, even when they stayed with a friend who has a boy cat, are homosexual. If homosexuality is a choice for humans, then that would hold true for all animals, right? Okay, so then why/how would my cats choose to be homosexual? They've been around a male cat. There's one who runs around our home whenever one of my cats is in heat. If my girls really wanted to, they could get outside to him. But, they don't. Did my cats choose this? I think not. I don't believe it is a choice. As for people who have made a 'choice' to be homosexual, they were most likely bi-sexual anyways and just happened to find something good with some of their own sex.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 04, 2006....
    jade: sorry, but i kinda missed it in a flurry of posting. what can i say? i think that "treating" homosexuality is incredibly wrong, b/c it tries to "fix" something that isn't actually wrong. [shrugs] ed
  • Heartwalker said on Aug 05, 2006....
    Wow, this is a sensitive and taboo topic, but Let me make one point clear... I have nothing against any faction of the society, and the opinions given here are as a result of my diligently applied thought and applied common sense, and my perception and analysis of trhe major faiths of the world. 1.Man is different from the rest of creation , it is evident from the fact tht he has the ability to think and choose for himself, as to what is right morally and what is wrong. 2.It is this sixth sene, viz...common sense that enables him to use the other 5 senses of touch,taste, sight, hearing and smell wisely. 3.We are not our thoughts merely....we are more than our feelings, more than our actions, more than our wishes, etc.... 4.Basically we are spiritual beings having a human experience...the world is our exercise book, we can draw good pictures, scribble, tear out pages or just leave our life blank.... 5.We always have a chioce...all ways have a choice... We have to apply our common sense and make sure that the choice that we make is the right choice... 6.And after coming so long, let me tell something about our brains... our brain which thinks and feels.... cannot eel pain, if I were to cut open a portion of a person's brain, he would not feel the pain atall.... now are u able to appreciate the significance of our feelings, our brain fires off neurons and we feel, think etc.... 7.So all this attraction towares the same sex, opposite sex, is neurons getting fired in the brains' different parts... And snce we are spirits, not just flesh and bone, Does it not serve us to realise our true nature... rather than submitting to carnal and lower pleasures ? 8. {color=red]The good is the enemy of the best, because it is not good enough when compared with the best [/color].So why settle for something unnatural, unhuman, just because some individuals indulge themselves in it? 8.Man is a social animal... He needs constantly stroking from fellow humans, that is why we call ourselves a society... ( a collection of individuals) but when a majority of individuals think wrongly,...it gets acfceptance in numbers, but a wrong is a wrong is a wrong, after all for aeons, we thought that the earth was flat, So in my humble opinion and applying my intelligence and by dint of being a God fearing person, I state that any kind of sexual promiscuity is wrong... we are sinning against our creator.We are here to expres our souls in creative ways and not have sex with animal passion, as is glorified and exacerbated by the net and hollywood. I know that this is a controversial topic and people feel too much rather than thinking clearly about it, that precisely is the problem about any kind of taboo stuff.
  • Chimaera said on Aug 05, 2006....
    1. Man is different in that he has a greater degree of cognition that other animals, this is true. But even with that capacity for abstract thought, man is still limited and is still subject to his nature; there are fundamental hard constraints that are simply not subject to choice. 2. In general, I find arguments from 'common sense' to be specious -- common sense can tell us a lot of things that are wrong. You're also conflating two different, er, senses of the word sense here. 3. I'm not sure what you mean by this. 4. Again, this seems to be a little vacuous; what do you mean by 'spiritual beings'? Are you expressing a Cartesian sentiment here? 5. I think that you're mistaken here, or at least overstating things. We do not always have a choice and, moreover, not all things are even plausibly subject to choice. I think your formulation of common sense is underdeveloped; you're assuming an ubiquitous common standard of normativity that doesn't exist. And allow me to re-iterate: almost every argument I've seen that relies on 'common sense' has been wrong. 6. The lack of the appropriate receptor cells in the brain has got what to do with what? And how is the mechanical functioning of the brain relevant to your point? 7. And a car runs "just" on internal combustion: so what? What does that have to do with anything? You're not connecting you premises clearly, nor have you established what our "true natures" are, other than your simply saying so. 8. You haven't established *anything* as unnatural or unhuman, not by any principled means whatsoever. 8 (again?). Yes, wrong is wrong -- that's a tautology. But categorizing thoughts and behaviours as right or wrong is a little more difficult than that. But here, at last, we get to the heart of the matter: you believe that sexual promiscuity is wrong (Homosexuality as well? You haven't said, so I won't assume) for reasons of religious conviction. I don't agree with that, but I can understand it, at least. I think perhaps you should try to re-articulate your argument a little more clearly: as it stands, this appears less like the product of careful, rational thought and more like a bunch of random, ill-informed notions haphazardly presented to justify a point. I'm willing to hear your argument, as you claim to have given them a lot of thought, but you're going to have to present it better than you have above.
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 05, 2006....
    heartwalker: first, let me correct you in one area: homosexuality is not a taboo subject except for in certain backwards parts of the world. :> second, i don't know how much thought you've given your argument but i don't think it was enough, as chimaera neatly demonstrates. ed
  • timmydelatorre said on Aug 05, 2006....
    I think we are all putting too much time and thought into what other people do. I say do whatever you feel you need to do to "live" your own life. Whatever makes you happy! I have all respect for all religions, but as a HUMAN doing HUMAN things, I know for a fact that no one is unnatural! What is immoral to YOU may not be immoral to the next person. For anyone to put a killer and a person who loves the same kind of person in the same category is just plain ridiculous. I'd rather be happy than to live a life that I was TAUGHT to live. I pretty much grew up in the streets, and for anyone to tell me anything about how to live my life, would be in vain. I've gotten through just fine without needing anyone for anything. And dare I say I'm still just as "BLESSED" as anyone else, Or just as DAMNED because we are all still here in this crazy crazy world! I think I'm just rambling now, but I'll just leave you with this, love both yourself and others unconditionally.
  • favored said on Aug 06, 2006....
    I think God is in control of all this. Its quite possible aids came over here with the damned monkeys because God didn't want us believing we came from apes. HE showed us. Hey silver, you ever sold cars?
  • silverwhisper said on Aug 06, 2006....
    favored: 1. i'm confused by your comment. are you saying that god made people gay and therefore there christians are wrong to ostracize and persecute them? or did you mean something else? 2. it's also quite possible god created the universe using the tools of science just as we understand them. if god created us he granted us reason, insight and the ability to question. why would he grant us these gifts if we were not intended to [i]use[/i] them? this is what enlightenment thinkers concluded must be the case. ed
  • desertsienna said on Sep 11, 2006....
    Most of the gays I have met have drug problems, unstable personalities, communication problems, and come from a background of abuse. I don't like the hate-mongering towards them, do not consider it a sin and don't think there is any link to abusive behavior on their part. They are abusive towards themselves.

    Very few maintain relationships. This is why even after same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, few gays were rushing to the altar. Most women seem more masculine than they should and most men seem too feminine. There is something oversensitive, difficult, explosive and awkward about them.

    The number of so-called homosexuals in our population is about 2-5 percent, though propaganda likes to suggest the number is much higher. We live in an open society and I would say 1 out of 200 couples I see are gay. It is just not as common as the media makes it out to be.

    If they want to have their relationships and civil unions, let them. It is not my life or your life. As far as raising children goes, children should be raised by their natural parents whenever possible because that is the ideal. Even if the parent is a single parent, there is nothing wrong with that. Kids should know their bloodlines and ancestry. There are lots of good unmarried, divorced and single parents and some terrible married ones.

    I think it originates with pathological behaviour which is worsened by institutionalization, street life, poverty, drug use, and mental illness. It is possible that the fetus is exposed to the hormones of the opposite sex, which causes a predilection towards this set of behaviours. I am not blaming them, but we should try to help them. It is a chemical imbalance in the brain related to hormonal exposure that can be altered as well as certain environments and experiences.
  • silverwhisper said on Sep 11, 2006....
    hello, desert sienna.

    interestingly: most of the gays i've met have been drug-free, and the gay men to whom i am closest are in stable, long-term relationships. by that standard then, it would seem that all gay men in the US would have rushed to massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal.

    where do you get your estimates of 2-5% of the population? if you're going to dismiss one set of figures as propaganda and tout the validity of another set, you should have some kind of basis for that b/c otherwise, it's nothing but opinion.

    re: parenting, i have friends who were abused during their childhood by their parents. they would have been vastly better off in foster care. this thing about biological parents always being best is complete and utter nonsense.

    and why in the world is being gay in your mind somehow something to be "fixed"?

    ed
  • desertsienna said on Sep 11, 2006....
    Because it is dysfunctional behaviour and doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose. I never made any assumptions and have known gay people off and on for years. They all have the same patterns. I am not suggesting that straights are not capable of some of these behaviours, but never in the same sets of patterns.

    When I lived in the city, none of the transvestites lived in mainstream society even though Edmonton is one of the most tolerant cities I have ever lived in. I have never heard a prejudiced comment towards gays in that city ever. Nevertheless, many of them engaged in self-mutilation, prostitution, sleeping around, living in and out of shelters, getting arrested for vandalism, were inappropriately passionate and childish, dressed back and forth between the genders, suffered from depression, hepatitis, borderline personality, etc. I am not blaming them. This is what I see. I didn't go looking for it and I assumed nothing about gay people.

    I do not judge them anymore than I judge schizophrenics, people with diabetes, a person with cystic fibrosis or someone with a head injury. And I don't blame them for AIDS the way some conservatives do.

    As far as that statistic goes, here is something out of both Encarta Encyclopedia and Wikipedia:

    However, current estimates suggest that the term homosexual may apply to 2 to 4 percent of men. Estimates for lesbians are lower. Not all people who engage in homosexual activity necessarily identify themselves as homosexual.

    Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    The first major shift followed the publication of two famous reports, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1952), by American biologist Alfred Charles Kinsey. Although these works contained inflated estimates of the homosexual population and the incidence of behavior, they provided a more realistic picture of homosexuality and helped demystify it.

    Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    In the United States during the 2004 elections, exit polls indicated 4% of all voters self-identified as gay or lesbian.

    In Canada, a 2003 report by Statistics Canada indicated that among Canadians aged 18 to 59, 1% reported that they are homosexual, and 0.7% reported to be bi-sexual. [2]

    Prenatal hormonal theory

    Main article: Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation
    The neurobiology of the masculinization of the brain is fairly well understood. Estradiol, and testosterone, which is catalysed by the enzyme 5α-reductase into dihydrotestosterone, act upon androgen receptors in the brain to masculinize it. If there are few androgen receptors (people with Androgen insensitivity syndrome) or too much androgen (females with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia) there can be physical and psychological effects.[3] It has been suggested that both male and female homosexuality are results of variation in this process.[4] In these studies lesbianism is typically linked with a higher amount of masculinization than is found in heterosexual females, though when dealing with male homosexuality there are results supporting both higher and lower degrees of masculinization than heterosexual males. (See the main article for further details.)


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
  • silverwhisper said on Sep 11, 2006....
    because it is dysfunctional behaviour and doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose. i never made any assumptions and have known gay people off and on for years. they all have the same patterns. i am not suggesting that straights are not capable of some of these behaviours, but never in the same sets of patterns.

    welcome to "i'm not really a homophobe" 101, sienna. homosexuality is not dysfunctional, any more than left handedness is dysfunctional. if it's dysfunctional, kindly tell me which definition of dysfunctional you're using.

    and all gays you've known have the same patterns? confirmation bias, hello?

    i do not judge them anymore than i judge schizophrenics, people with diabetes, a person with cystic fibrosis or someone with a head injury. and i don't blame them for AIDS the way some conservatives do.

    no: your way apparently is to judge them diseased, sick or injured. and it's every bit as contemptible.

    ed
  • Ajinia said on Sep 11, 2006....
    I have an aunt and an uncle who are both gay. Neither of them engages in any self-destructive behavior or drugs. My aunt does drink too much, but unfortunately, alcoholism runs in that side of the family, so I can't attribute that to being gay. My uncle has been with his soulmate since they were 19 - they are now 55 - longer than most heterosexual couples I know. My aunt has been with her partner for 10 years now - almost as long as my husband and I.

    Many people still won't admit to being homosexual, so the estimates at exit polls are bound to be conservative.

    While homosexuality may not serve an evolutionary purpose, it does not mean that it is dysfunctional. Homosexual behavior is found in many species, not just humans.

    I also have a transsexual friend who exhibits none of the problems that you have noted in all of your experiences. By the way, she did not become a woman because she wanted to be with men, her life partner is a female - she has always been attracted to woman but while growing up as male, never felt as if it was right. She is much happier now than ever in the past as a homosexual woman than she ever was as a heterosexual man.
  • desertsienna said on Sep 11, 2006....
    As far as homophobia goes, one has to hate homosexuals in the first place. Freud viewed it as a deviant condition but he did not hate them. I do not advocate taking away anyone's rights or hating anyone. I am not here to suggest what types of relationships people have. To me, this is an issue about society and psychology and not legality.

    Since I have been viciously assaulted by a lesbian and am still tolerant of them, I don't know why anyone would call me a homophobe. The harassment started last year and has been escalating till this incident two weeks ago, when a woman demanded I come over and kiss her in my workplace, then followed me and tried to chase me down, crashed into a wall when backing up, then came around the other end and started slapping me, hitting me, verbally abusing me and threatening me. I had dozens of witnesses, including three co-workers who could not understand her bizarre behaviour. She is banned from the restaurant.

    A police officer told me this type of thing is not common but she has heard of it before. I have heard from others who are at their wit's end over harassment, sometimes from men, sometimes from other women. They feel pressured and insulted after simply saying no. I simply told the woman, "Excuse me, but I am doing tables. I will get someone to go see you about your concern." None of these people had a problem with gays, they had to excuse harassment because apparently it is wrong to complain when someone of the same sex harasses you, or so they thought noone would believe them or someone would blame them.

    By no means am I suggesting this is the norm. I serve gay couples a few times a week and they are polite and considerate and never pushy. This is an occasional but repetitive occurrence. I have heard of gays getting harassed and think it should be stamped out, but I don't think anybody should confuse hitting on someone or flirting or asking with assault and harassment. The other stuff you just say no to. Nobody should accost you, etc.

    Also, to be a homophobe, I would have to spread hate. Telling a person with bipolar disorder that they have a biological/physiological problem that can be improved or corrected or managed isn't a prejudice against people with mental illnesses. Your ideas are extreme political correctness gone amok.
  • silverwhisper said on Sep 11, 2006....
    sienna: no, a homophobe fears homosexuals. that's what the "phobe" suffix actually means. look it up. you're obviously horribly underinformed on the matter and not terribly interested in changing that, and that's most regrettable but ultimately your problem, not mine.

    and again, you've not addressed the central question: why to you is homosexuality something to be fixed?

    your ideas are homophobic. it's really that simple. o, it isn't the violent kind. it's the equally-offensive but less obvious "they are lesser" kind.

    you're citing freud's views on homosexuals, when homosexuality was incorrectly listed as a mental disorder by the APA until what, the 60s? take whatever comfort you want in outmoded ideas but that's just sloppy thinking.

    ed
  • desertsienna said on Sep 11, 2006....
    I do not feel that anyone deserves any sort of harassment, gay or straight, period. There is no reason for me to be on the receiving end of harassment and abuse from militant lesbians who try to convert heterosexuals. You cannot convert heterosexuals. As your group has been saying for years, it 'isn't possible to convert.' Why apply the opposite to us?

    The normative majority of people are inherently heterosexual. Because I am single, that doesn't mean I should be perceived as different. I am interested in marriage or living together with a man and having a child, maybe raising one on my own and having boyfriends. Gayness doesn't come into the picture. As I pointed out before, I am not offended or angered by a simple request, flirtation, joking around casually, etc. I resent an attempt to accost and harass and hurt me. I don't try to win over gay men. I know better. I have better things to do with my time.

    My friend had three boyfriends who switched over and then switched back. All of them came from neglectful backgrounds, used drugs and were unstable. Nice guys, I liked them but they were self-destructive.

    Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
    ho‧mo‧pho‧bi‧a  /ˌhoʊməˈfoʊbiə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

    –noun unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Origin: 1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia]

    —Related forms
    ho‧mo‧pho‧bic, adjective
    Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
    Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

    As behaviors and thoughts that are frequently considered homophobic are often not fear based but instead reflect a disapproval of homosexuality, recent psychological literature has favored the term homonegativity.

    There is also considerable debate over the term's usage as a label for opponents of certain categories of social policy, with the debate centering upon the question of whether such opposition is a legitimate moral stance or indefensible discrimination, and whether or not there are reasons other than fear and misunderstanding that might justify such positions. As in cases such as the Santorum controversy, many have alleged that the term is often used as a means of demonizing and silencing political opponents without regard to their actual motives; those on the other side of the debate argue that the motives in such cases are always connected with bigotry or fear.
    Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. [1] It can also mean hatred or disapproval of homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures, and is generally used to assert bigotry.[2]

    When the term is applied to political or religious opposition to specific sexual acts or political positions, it has been criticized as a pejorative, loaded term intended to discredit or silence opposition to any of the political or social issues connected with homosexuality (see LGBT social movements). Critics of the term have often alleged that it creates a climate of intimidation by demonizing one side of the debate.

    from Wikipedia.org
    1. History
    As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as the Symposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).

    Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

    Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation. Status concerns were also of the highest importance. Given that only free men had full status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Hence the cultural ideal of a same-sex relationship was between an older man, probably in his 20's or 30's, known as the erastes, and a boy whose beard had not yet begun to grow, the eromenos or paidika. In this relationship there was courtship ritual, involving gifts (such as a rooster), and other norms. The erastes had to show that he had nobler interests in the boy, rather than a purely sexual concern. The boy was not to submit too easily, and if pursued by more than one man, was to show discretion and pick the more noble one. There is also evidence that penetration was often avoided by having the erastes face his beloved and place his penis between the thighs of the eromenos, which is known as intercrural sex. The relationship was to be temporary and should end upon the boy reaching adulthood (Dover, 1989). To continue in a submissive role even while one should be an equal citizen was considered troubling, although there certainly were many adult male same-sex relationships that were noted and not strongly stigmatized. While the passive role was thus seen as problematic, to be attracted to men was often taken as a sign of masculinity. Greek gods, such as Zeus, had stories of same-sex exploits attributed to them, as did other key figures in Greek myth and literature, such as Achilles and Hercules. Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle.

    Ancient Rome had many parallels in its understanding of same-sex attraction, and sexual issues more generally, to ancient Greece. This is especially true under the Republic. Yet under the Empire, Roman society slowly became more negative in its views towards sexuality, probably due to social and economic turmoil, even before Christianity became influential.

    Exactly what attitude the New Testament has towards sexuality in general, and same-sex attraction in particular, is a matter of sharp debate. John Boswell argues, in his fascinating Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, that many passages taken today as condemnations of homosexuality are more concerned with prostitution, or where same-sex acts are described as “unnatural” the meaning is more akin to ‘out of the ordinary’ rather than as immoral (Boswell, 1980, ch.4; see also Boswell, 1994). Yet others have criticized, sometimes persuasively, Boswell's scholarship (see Greenberg, 1988, ch.5). What is clear, however, is that while condemnation of same-sex attraction is marginal to the Gospels and only an intermittent focus in the rest of the New Testament, early Christian church fathers were much more outspoken. In their writings there is a horror at any sort of sex, but in a few generations these views eased, in part due no doubt to practical concerns of recruiting converts. By the fourth and fifth centuries the mainstream Christian view allowed for procreative sex.

    This viewpoint, that procreative sex within marriage is allowed, while every other expression of sexuality is sinful, can be found, for example, in St. Augustine. This understanding leads to a concern with the gender of one's partner that is not found in previous Greek or Roman views, and it clearly forbids homosexual acts. Soon this attitude, especially towards homosexual sex, came to be reflected in Roman Law. In Justinian's Code, promulgated in 529, persons who engaged in homosexual sex were to be executed, although those who were repentant could be spared. Historians agree that the late Roman Empire saw a rise in intolerance towards sexuality, although there were again important regional variations.

    With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, “European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century.” (Greenberg, 1988, 260) Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9).

    The latter part of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, however, saw a sharp rise in intolerance towards homosexual sex, alongside persecution of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and others. While the causes of this are somewhat unclear, it is likely that increased class conflict alongside the Gregorian reform movement in the Catholic Church were two important factors. The Church itself started to appeal to a conception of “nature” as the standard of morality, and drew it in such a way so as to forbid homosexual sex (as well as extramarital sex, nonprocreative sex within marriage, and often masturbation). For example, the first ecumenical council to condemn homosexual sex, Lateran III of 1179, stated that “Whoever shall be found to have committed that incontinence which is against nature” shall be punished, the severity of which depended upon whether the transgressor was a cleric or layperson (quoted in Boswell, 1980, 277). This appeal to natural law (discussed below) became very influential in the Western tradition. An important point to note, however, is that the key category here is the ‘sodomite,’ which differs from the contemporary idea of ‘homosexual’. A sodomite was understood as act-defined, rather than as a type of person. Someone who had desires to engage in sodomy, yet did not act upon them, was not a sodomite. Also, persons who engaged in heterosexual sodomy were also sodomites. There are reports of persons being burned to death or beheaded for sodomy with a spouse (Greenberg, 1988, 277). Finally, a person who had engaged in sodomy, yet who had repented of his sin and vowed to never do it again, was no longer a sodomite. The gender of one's partner is again not of decisive importance, although some medieval theologians single out same-sex sodomy as the worst type of sexual crime.

    For the next several centuries in Europe, the laws against homosexual sex were severe in their penalties. Enforcement, however, was episodic. In some regions, decades would pass without any prosecutions. Yet the Dutch, in the 1730's, mounted a harsh anti-sodomy campaign (alongside an anti-Gypsy pogrom), even using torture to obtain confessions. As many as one hundred men and boys were executed and denied burial (Greenberg, 1988, 313-4). Also, the degree to which sodomy and same-sex attraction were accepted varied by class, with the middle class taking the narrowest view, while the aristocracy and nobility often accepted public expressions of alternative sexualities. At times, even with the risk of severe punishment, same-sex oriented subcultures would flourish in cities, sometimes only to be suppressed by the authorities. In the 19th century there was a significant reduction in the legal penalties for sodomy. The Napoleonic code decriminalized sodomy, and with Napoleon's conquests that Code spread. Furthermore, in many countries where homosexual sex remained a crime, the general movement at this time away from the death penalty usually meant that sodomy was removed from the list of capital offenses.

    In the 18th and 19th centuries an overtly theological framework no longer dominated the discourse about same-sex attraction. Instead, secular arguments and interpretations became increasingly common. Probably the most important secular domain for discussions of homosexuality was in medicine, including psychology. This discourse, in turn, linked up with considerations about the state and its need for a growing population, good soldiers, and intact families marked by clearly defined gender roles. Doctors were called in by courts to examine sex crime defendants (Foucault, 1980; Greenberg, 1988). At the same time, the dramatic increase in school attendance rates and the average length of time spent in school, reduced transgenerational contact, and hence also the frequency of transgenerational sex. Same-sex relations between persons of roughly the same age became the norm.

    Clearly the rise in the prestige of medicine resulted in part from the increasing ability of science to account for natural phenomena on the basis of mechanistic causation. The application of this viewpoint to humans led to accounts of sexuality as innate or biologically driven. The voluntarism of the medieval understanding of sodomy, that sodomites chose sin, gave way to the modern notion of homosexuality as a deep, unchosen characteristic of persons, regardless of whether they act upon that orientation. The idea of a ‘latent sodomite’ would not have made sense, yet under this new view it does make sense to speak of a person as a ‘latent homosexual.’ Instead of specific acts defining a person, as in the medieval view, an entire physical and mental makeup, usually portrayed as somehow defective or pathological, is ascribed to the modern category of ‘homosexual.’ Although there are historical precursors to these ideas (e.g., Aristotle gave a physiological explanation of passive homosexuality), medicine gave them greater public exposure and credibility (Greenberg, 1988, ch.15). The effects of these ideas cut in conflicting ways. Since homosexuality is, by this view, not chosen, it makes less sense to criminalize it. Persons are not choosing evil acts. Yet persons may be expressing a diseased or pathological mental state, and hence medical intervention for a cure is appropriate. Hence doctors, especially psychiatrists, campaigned for the repeal or reduction of criminal penalties for consensual homosexual sodomy, yet intervened to “rehabilitate” homosexuals. They also sought to develop techniques to prevent children from becoming homosexual, for example by arguing that childhood masturbation caused homosexuality, hence it must be closely guarded against.

    In the 20th century sexual roles were redefined once again. For a variety of reasons, premarital intercourse slowly became more common and eventually acceptable. With the decline of prohibitions against sex for the sake of pleasure even outside of marriage, it became more difficult to argue against gay sex. These trends were especially strong in the 1960's, and it was in this context that the gay liberation movement took off. Although gay and lesbian rights groups had been around for decades, the low-key approach of the Mattachine Society (named after a medieval secret society) and the Daughters of Bilitis had not gained much ground. This changed in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, when the patrons of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village, rioted after a police raid. In the aftermath of that event, gay and lesbian groups began to organize around the country. Gay Democratic clubs were created in every major city, and one fourth of all college campuses had gay and lesbian groups (Shilts, 1993, ch.28). Large gay urban communities in cities from coast to coast became the norm. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its official listing of mental disorders. The increased visibility of gays and lesbians has become a permanent feature of American life despite the two critical setbacks of the AIDS epidemic and an anti-gay backlash (see Berman, 1993, for a good survey). The post-Stonewall era has also seen marked changes in Western Europe, where the repeal of anti-sodomy laws and legal equality for gays and lesbians has become common.

    2. Natural Law
    Today natural law theory offers the most common intellectual defense for differential treatment of gays and lesbians, and as such it merits attention. The development of natural law is a long and very complicated story, but a reasonable place to begin is with the dialogues of Plato, for this is where some of the central ideas are first articulated, and, significantly enough, are immediately applied to the sexual domain. For the Sophists, the human world is a realm of convention and change, rather than of unchanging moral truth. Plato, in contrast, argued that unchanging truths underpin the flux of the material world. Reality, including eternal moral truths, is a matter of phusis. Even though there is clearly a great degree of variety in conventions from one city to another (something ancient Greeks became increasingly aware of), there is still an unwritten standard, or law, that humans should live under.

    In the Laws, Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex, and takes a much harsher line than he does in the Symposium or the Phraedrus. In Book One he writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is “unnatural” (636c). Probably the best way of understanding Plato's discussion here is in the context of his overall concerns with the appetitive part of the soul and how best to control it. Plato clearly sees same-sex passions as especially strong, and hence particularly problematic, although in the Symposium that erotic attraction could be the catalyst for a life of philosophy, rather than base sensuality (Cf. Dover, 1989, 153-170; Nussbaum, 1999, esp. chapter 12).

    Other figures played important roles in the development of natural law theory. Aristotle, with his emphasis upon reason as the distinctive human function, and the Stoics, with their emphasis upon human beings as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, both helped to shape the natural law perspective which says that “True law is right reason in agreement with nature,” as Cicero put it. Aristotle, in his approach, did allow for change to occur according to nature, and therefore the way that natural law is embodied could itself change with time, which was an idea Aquinas later incorporated into his own natural law theory. Aristotle did not write extensively about sexual issues, since he was less concerned with the appetites than Plato. Probably the best reconstruction of his views places him in mainstream Greek society as outlined above; the main issue is that of active versus a passive role, with only the latter problematic for those who either are or will become citizens. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, was, according to his contemporaries, only attracted to men, and his thought had no prohibitions against same-sex sexuality. In contrast, Cicero, a later Stoic, was dismissive about sexuality in general, with some harsher remarks towards same-sex pursuits (Cicero, 1966, 407-415).

    from http://www.plato.stanford.edu
  • silverwhisper said on Sep 12, 2006....
    sienna: i'm only addressing the part of your comment that isn't a just cutting & pasting. i'm pretty familiar w/ homosexuality so please don't just sit there and think cutting & pasting articles makes your argument for you. it doesn't.

    i do not feel that anyone deserves any sort of harassment, gay or straight, period. there is no reason for me to be on the receiving end of harassment and abuse from militant lesbians who try to convert heterosexuals. you cannot convert heterosexuals. as your group has been saying for years, it 'isn't possible to convert.' why apply the opposite to us?

    that's correct, people should not be the target of harrassment for things over which they cannot exercise control. so what in the world are you talking about w/ this "your group" business, and why in the world do you believe that i have any interest in converting you? i've said nothing of the kind. if you feel i have done so, show me.

    the normative majority of people are inherently heterosexual.

    which definition of normative are you employing here? several definitions for that word exist, some of which imply a value judgment, others of which do not and it's important if we're to discuss the matter that i understand your meaning.

    because i am single, that doesn't mean i should be perceived as different. i am interested in marriage or living together with a man and having a child, maybe raising one on my own and having boyfriends. gayness doesn't come into the picture.

    wonderful but i don't see what relevance this has.

    as i pointed out before, i am not offended or angered by a simple request, flirtation, joking around casually, etc. i resent an attempt to accost and harass and hurt me. i don't try to win over gay men. i know better.

    so yes, violence and rudeness, whttp://www.soulcast.com/post/show/10834/about-homosexualityhich are hardly unique behaviors to gays, should not be tolerated. so...?

    my friend had three boyfriends who switched over and then switched back. all of them came from neglectful backgrounds, used drugs and were unstable. nice guys, i liked them but they were self-destructive.

    so you can therefore extrapolate everything you need to know about gay men worldwide based upon these three examples, all of whom dated your friend? that makes absolutely zero sense. i have known latinos, many of whom were just as industrious or moreso than myself. i've also known latinos who were lazy. are you familiar w/ the expression "confirmation bias"? you should look into it: you may see something that looks familiar there.

    and again: you continue to ignore the question of why is homosexuality necessarily something that to your mind is best likened to a disease, injury or medical condition to be fixed? your silence as to this question is forming the negative impression that you cannot answer it.

    ed
  • desertsienna said on Sep 12, 2006....
    It is inaccurate to suggest the 'conversion' part was about you. As I said before, I was discussing a minority of lesbians, not an entire group of people. I am not stereotyping and the commentary wasn't directed at you personally. Go back and read over my comments and you will see that.

    Normal is not something that really has to be defined as the usage explains it. It is the idea of what is healthy, really. Self-destructive behaviour insn't healthy physiologically, emotionally, mentally or in any other way.

    As far as examples go, I could list dozens if not hundreds but I am not interested in going over absolutely everyone. I have simply given you a general impression. Since you are so on the defensive over this, it must bother you. Perhaps it is because there is truth in what I am pointing out and that worries you.

    As far as mentioning Hispanic-Americans, their culture and ethnicity do not factor intot his discussion and you cannot compare two entirely different groups of people, nor should you misuse a past history of racial prejudice against this group to justify your argument because it is a different situation.

    It is like comparing antiSemitism to bipolar disorder. One could probably compare say, the treatment of people with HIV/AIDS
    to the past treatment of Jews, but one can't compare two entirely different situations without any common ground or parallels.

    Also, I would not make racist statements against Latinos. And I would not continue down this road of hating heterosexuals that you seem to be bent on. I don't understand it. It is as if you hate anyone who is not gay. I understand you are more comfortable in that group, which promotes itself through activism as a unique group. So don't get upset at me for referring to you as you want to be referred to. It isn't my idea.

    Homosexuality has been referred to as a biochemical imbalance in the brain, a mental illness, a response to poverty, drug addiction, neglect and abuse. One only has to look at what happens in institutions and jails to understand that. Jail and institutions are not normative environments and most of the people there are troubled. I am not saying being gay means you engage in criminal activity, I am saying the environments seem to encourage self-destructive activity.
  • silverwhisper said on Sep 12, 2006....
    sienna, you obviously haven't read anything else i've ever blogged about.

    i'm not gay. indeed, i go on a great length about my marriage in a number of my other blog entries. so don't break your arm patting yourself on the back at how clever you think you're being: you aren't. you are in fact being quite the opposite. :>

    if you could simply answer my question about why you think that homosexuality is somehow a disease, injury or disorder, or otherwise a condition to be cured, a question i have already asked several times and which you've avoided addressing at all, that would signal to me that you're actually reading what i'm saying instead of randomly throwing out tired inapplicable response #483707321.

    if you can't do that, i wouldn't be terribly surprised, as you haven't demonstrated that you're actually reading what's in the comments to which you're responding.

    but i'm an optimist at heart. :>

    ed
  • Ajinia said on Sep 12, 2006....
    Sienna, I think you are under the mistaken assumption that silver is homosexual. He is not - in fact, he is married to a woman.

    Again, your definition of normal is that which is healthy. Um, I hate to tell you, but your experiences with homosexuals is not the end all be all of homosexuality. As I stated, I know many homosexuals too, none of whom engage in any of the destructive behavior that you have noticed. Perhaps you are simply hanging around the wrong people in general?

    Because let me tell you, in my experience, there are more heterosexuals who engage in unhealthy, destructive behavior than the homosexuals. I am not homosexual, I am married to a wonderful man and have a daughter. However, I do know enough people who are to have a healthier view of them than you seem to.

    Homosexuality has been referred to as a biochemical imbalance in the brain, a mental illness, a response to poverty, drug addiction, neglect and abuse.


    While this may have been true, please note in your own words - has been - these are no longer considered valid as noted by the AMA's decision to take homosexuality out of the handbook of mental illness.

    And oh yeah, my aunt and uncle came from a middle-class two parent family - ergo no poverty, drug addiction, neglect or abuse. Also no history of mental illness or biochemical imbalances. Neither of them has ever been anything less than a contributing member of society with no institution or jail time.
  • Ajinia said on Sep 12, 2006....
    Silver, would you please delete the two extra posts. I don't know WHAT my ISP was doing. :) I think that when I edited the comment, it put it in as a new comment. BAH.

    You can leave in the last one as that is the one that does the quote properly.
  • silverwhisper said on Sep 12, 2006....
    ajinia: done.

    o yeah: note that as far as sienna's concerned, theory and current medical knowledge are no substitute for her limited anecdotal evidence and outdated medical information used to prop up her confirmation bias (linked previously).

    i can't wait for IPJ to drop by. :>

    ed
  • Ajinia said on Sep 12, 2006....
    Oooh yeah, that'll be fun. :)
  • desertsienna said on Sep 13, 2006....
    I will acquiesce. I am getting tired of this blog, which isn't a real debate about anything but just tiresome rhetoric. As I have said before, I do not advocate taking away someone's rights but it is good to debate the nature of something.

    I will note that you have been insensitive in not acknowledging the wrongs that have been inflicted on me. I think your special-interest thinking is going to your head. I will apologize for the sake of making peace, though, if I have offended you in any way, but I am simply not homophobic.
  • silverwhisper said on Sep 13, 2006....
    sienna: let's review, shall we? first you insult by dismissing everything said, none of which you've engaged, as tiresome rhetoric, when you've been guilty of exactly the same thing. then you go on to chide me for not acknowledging the wrongs that you've suffered. OK, that was probably kinda rude: sorry that you were injured b/c some psychopath happened to be there.

    i honestly have no idea what to make of you.

    no, you haven't offended me. you've made me curious and you've made me confused but no, not offend. but if you think what i've said is special-interest thinking, it's hard to avoid the impression that you've led a very, very sheltered life to date. you've certainly never discussed the matter much w/ anyone who doesn't share your views.

    ed
  • InterplanetJanet said on Sep 18, 2006....
    I think I missed this one... damn. I have zero time to get into this now, but don't worry, I'll be back.
  • young.voice said on Nov 28, 2007....
    this is a comment responding to a post a while a go!
    my parents are gay and i am coompleely supportive and open minded of course, but i do understand what you are saying when you ask why gay people have a parade when they want to be rteated equal, it is the same reason people celebrate black history month, because black people were not recognized for a long time, so now they try to start recognizing them more, same with gay people
    and if you want to start a straight parade then good for you! i would go:D
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 29, 2007....
    young voice: heh...every parade is a straight parade. :>

    ed
  • faulty_perfection said on Nov 29, 2007....
     Turn from your sin ... God loves you!

     

    Genesis 1:27-28:  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply

    Leviticus 18:22:  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

    Deuteronomy 23:17:  There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel

    1 Kings 14:24:  There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.

    1 Kings 15:12:  He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made

    1 Kings 22:46:  He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa.

    2 Kings 23:7:  He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.

    Romans 1:26-27:  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

    1Corithians 6:9-10:  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    1 Timothy 1:9-10:  Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

    Jude 1:7:  Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire

  • silverwhisper said on Nov 29, 2007....
    you're not much of a christian if you're using the KJV translation. sheesh. learn a little about the faith you claim to profess someday and get back to me.

    here's what i find hysterical about idiots like you, though: you insist that god loves everyone but insist on citing scriptural quotations in which here's nothing of the love of god in them.

    back to sunday school with you, kid.

    ed

Comment on "about homosexuality"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

Homosexuality – What You Think

carojackson posted on Nov 03, 2009 | views: 15 | Tags: Homosexuality, homosexuality in the community, latent homosexuality
Homosexuality in the community has brought in some confusion and forced some people in business to act in a way they would not have otherwise acted.... read entire post 0 comments

Obama steps it up

SeanRenaud posted on Oct 28, 2009 | views: 37 | Tags: Obama, gays, TAG-O-MATIC, homosexuals
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20091028/pl_mcclatchy/3343585

I'll be honest. I didn't see this coming. I didn't expect Obama to do anything directly supporting the gay community. I had assumed that it was just lip service... read entire post 2 comments

Immaturity At It's Finest

Hegemone posted on Oct 25, 2009 | views: 43 | Tags: friends, family, TFYOOFHG and BILBILBM, behavior
I'm just glad I don't act this way. Letting some run off go, no worries. :-)... read entire post 2 comments