|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: homosexuality | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Here's a neat link, and an excerpt:
Page not found "For many readers, the idea of being even a little gay/lesbian and attracted to our own sex will be very repulsive. For 2000 years, Jews and Christians have been explicitly taught that homosexuality is "an abomination," "a crime against nature," "a sin," etc. (Within most denominations, however, there are groups supportive of gays/lesbians; see Prism Ministries). Anti-gay and lesbian attitudes are deeply instilled in our society. In 1990, 80% of Americans think homosexuality is wrong. Moreover, 92% of homosexuals have been threatened or verbally abused; 24% have been physically attacked for being gay. For centuries, homosexuals have been persecuted, castrated, considered abnormal, given shock treatment, assaulted by "gay-bashers," and killed by the hundreds of thousands by Hitler along with Jews, Russians, and other "undesirables." Why such a violent reaction to people just loving or being attracted to each other and harming no one? We don't know for sure, but we know the anti-homosexual prejudice is culturally or psychologically engendered, not innate, because some cultures have approved of homosexuality. Psychoanalysis suggests homophobia arises because we fear or hate our own unconscious homosexual tendencies. Some sociologists say our culture teaches males to hate anything that is vaguely feminine, including feminine men. Religions and other anti-gay groups picture gays as wanton sinners lusting to seduce small boys. The truth is heterosexual males are, in general, far more abusive towards young victims than homosexual males are. To learn more about homophobia, read Blumenfeld (1992). About 2300 years ago, Plato wrote a defense of homosexuality, titled Symposium. On certain topics we are slow learners."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Sorry, this is more from the above link. Too good to leave out:
"People, especially adults, loving each other and harmlessly having consensual sex are hardly major worries compared to people hating and being mean to each other, such as being prejudice or going to war. Homosexuals who want to love and raise a child are to be supported and praised; children raised by lesbian mothers are just as heterosexual and just as well adjusted as their peers (Tasker, 1995). Likewise, 91% of the sons of gay men (who had been married) lead a heterosexual life style. Gay parents seem to produce straight children." "Homosexuals simply have the genes, hormones, and/or early childhood experiences that orient them towards their own sex for affection and/or sexual gratification. There are many theories about the causes of homosexuality. And, this needs to be understood better; knowledge would help us give up the notion that it is vile. See Money (1989) for a rather technical summary of the research about homosexuality and unusual sex needs, called paraphilias. I suspect our bodies are built to instinctively respond with interest to almost any kind of sexual activity. Powerful social training is probably necessary to teach us to avoid certain kinds of harmless sexual activity, such as masturbation, and to scorn other activities, such as sex play with our own sex. (Emphasis on the following added by me) (Note: we seem to have little interest in theorizing about why heterosexual tendencies, such as breast or buttocks fetishes, occur; we are quite content with the shallow explanation that it is natural. But we seem to need a deeper and more pathological explanation of homosexual tendencies.)"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Surely, Gene, you must realize that I don't always bring up LDS in all threads. You do, however, keep reminding me to bring it into the discussion, so don't mind if I do... I only bring it and other religious groups up if it is relevant. I have said that I understand that when I criticize your church's policies and views and practices that you feel that I am somewhat attacking you personally. All I can do is tell you that I am not. I tend to take a critical stance on all religion, particularly when someone decides to argue in favor of a particular policy which has little or no logical or reasonable basis, yet makes claims about what is natural and what is not. I also understand that the use of the phrase "so-called" before the word "homosexual" every single time it appears in the LDS policy on gays doesn't make you think that they aren't even willing to use the word by itself because this might make people think that they believe gay people are "naturally" like that. To me, using "so-called" in this way is the way people use it to mean that whatever a group or a person is calling themselves isn't really what they are; a "so-called" artist would be a term for someone who calls themselves an artist but that the writer doesn't consider a "real" artist, for example. How else is "so-called" generally used to mean something else, Gene?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Up until very recently, Gene wasn't really a big-time participant in the LDS church, I believe. This is a relatively new thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Hmmm, Idid look at the context, and the speaker, and that's how I came to my interpretation. The speaker is coming from the context of beliving that the two genders were created by God for the union of man and woman exclusively. It makes perfect sense to me that someone who believes this wouldn't really be able to think that homosexuals were "really" homosexual, because God made the two genders for a reason. I believe that you have used this argument yourself.
quote: No, it doesn't sound like that to me. I think you are reading too much into what is there. He mentions nothing at all about nature or biology in the entire statement. Combine that significant ommission with the inclusion of the "so-called" qualifiers and you come to my conclusion. [/B][/QUOTE]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Of course, not all theists are christians, and not all christians are catholic, and catholics are the only ones who believe in original sin. The broad paintbrush you like to use is inaccurate and not what I would call an asset to debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B] quote: Not so, Schraf. I was raised Baptist-- definitely not Catholic-- and original sin was a given. The same is true, I believe, for the Pentecostal sect, to which my mother belonged before being married and to which she has returned after the death of my father. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major denomination which does not believe original sin.[/QUOTE] I stand corrected, and I am rather embarassed to have made the mistake, because I know what you are saying is true. "Duh" to me.
[QUOTE]^ See that, Nos. I am on your side. Of course, Schaf is right about this:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B] quote: Oh, so now the broad paintbrush has been reduced to a narrower one by the admission that only the Chistian groups not included in your "heretic sects" consider sex for pleasure wrong. nos, I mean this with all earnestness; please work on being less sloppy in your debating. The idea is to be intelligent and fair and to stick with the evidence. You all-too easily slip into a "All you religious people are a bunch of dumb poo poo heads" style of posting which is childish and diminishes the otherwise general very high quality of discourse around here. You and I are often agree on the issues, but I find myself wishing you weren't on "our" side, because of how snide and condescending and downright sloppy you can be, and often are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That is only true if all or a majority of individuals in a species engage in such "purely homosexual" behavior, and it is actually only true of males. Females could still be "taken" and impregnated. You are right; the point of life is the propagation of species. If you are gay and your brother is not, and you help to protect and raise your brother's children, a great deal of your genes are still being passed on through your nieces and nephews. In addition, if sexual behavior in humans was exclusively concerned with reproduction, there would be no reason for humans to be interested in sex except during the time when the female is fertile. The fact that we see humans as being interested in sex at all times during a woman's cycle strongly implies that, for humans, sex is a powerful bonding behavior which is very important to our success as a species.
quote: Except that it is obvious that a relatively small percentage of the human population follows an exclusively gay lifestyle, and this percentage has never been very high as long as such things have been recorded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
[B] quote: quote: Like many social traits with a genetic component, it isn't as simple as "dominant expression of the gene= pure behavior", as if we were talking about eye color. Yes, I think there is a component to sexual preference which is genetic, but it may be related to a genetic influence on when a fetus is exposed (or not) to certain hormones at certain timed during gestation, and later there is social training and pressure.
quote: Wait, you didn't get my original point, which was that among mammals, humans are very unusual in that we have sex at times when there is little to no chance that the female is able to conceive. This is a great risk, because the act of copulation is a great expenditure of energy, and one is completely vulnerable to predators. Why spend lots time doing it when there is virtually no chance of getting preggers? Social bonding, baby! It is also unusual that sex for female humans is as potentially pleasurable as it is (female orgasm).
quote: quote: Let's see, considering that the means exists for people to become pregnant without having sex, I am not worried that the human race would die out, even if "everybody was gay". Like I sauis, I do not think that homosexuality is a simple dominant/recessive genetic situation like eye color. There is much more to it than that. Also, I think that a lot more people have homosexual tendencies than our culture allows them to express.
quote: I know you are just making an argument, don't worry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: We weren't talking about me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]
feel free to read Song of Solomon unless its too 'juicy' for you.
[/B][/QUOTE] I have to tell you, TC, that I didn't even know about the Song of Solomon in over 20 years of being a Catholic; they sure as heck didn't teach us a sinle bit of it in the 12 years of catechism I attended, and I don't think they tended to quote it much in Mass. When I read parts of it, I was shocked. It is basically some pretty erotic love poetry. The majority of the world's Christians are Catholic, and the Catholic Church is pretty sexually-repressed. They even have to supress part of their own Bible!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator: We weren't talking about me. [/B][/QUOTE] Maybe you should have had a look at the end of that post with heretic sects. It had a at the end.[/B][/QUOTE] Oh, I noticed the smiley-face. I am just not willing to be disarmed or distracted by it at the moment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: quote: Um, maybe it reduces agression precisely because it feels good???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]The only problem with that is we don't know exactly when the perfect time is.. Therefore we "do it" as often as possible to increase the chances of getting "it done" properly.. Plus.. practice makes perfect
[QUOTE]
My response to this is the question, "Why have humans lost the ability to know when the female is fertile?"
Most other mammals have a "heat" in which it is the only time females are receptive to male sexual advances. Males are often not interested in females unless they smell and act "fertile" or in heat. I think that the reason we have lost this is because the social bonding that goes on was so important to overall survival that the benefits gained outweighed the risks to survival that frequent sexual contact would pose.
quote: Are you sure? Are you sure it's as simple as this? True, many male higher primates mate with multiple females, and it is in the male's individual evolutionary intrest to pass on his genes as often as possible. It is also the female's interest to keep the male around any way she can to help protect the offspring. On the other hand, since human babies are so helpless for so long, the protection of the male would be needed to enable those offspring/genes to survive. The males that were more likely to stay attached to the female/s would therefore be around to help protect and nurture his own offspring. I am thinking that this male "investment" in his own offspring is the root of the preoccupation many cultures have with the paternity of children, and the commonplace rejection of children raised by men who later find out that they are not the "real" father.
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024