|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,833 Year: 3,090/9,624 Month: 935/1,588 Week: 118/223 Day: 16/13 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: homosexuality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2171 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 2171 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.)"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3824 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
You forgot to attack my church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: He's getting to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: She, I think you'll find! Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 10-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Gene,
We’ve both been around here for a while now, & I’ve very much enjoyed your contributions. I have found your religious bias almost non-existent, up until the point that that you began discussing with Schraf, I couldn’t even tell you had religion! This is a good thing! But I respectfully disagree with you that homosexuals are (please correct me) unnatural, wrong, or any other tab you want to apply, more than any other genotype.
quote: (Evolutionary Biology. Douglas J Futuyma. 3rd Ed. Pp. 746) So homosexuality has been shown to have at least one strong genetic correlation. Cystic fibrosis is genetic (to name but a single example). Is that unnatural? Would you reserve the same feelings for these people as you would homosexuals? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: It's hard to tell over a cable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2171 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 2171 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3824 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]But I respectfully disagree with you that homosexuals are (please correct me) unnatural, wrong, or any other tab you want to apply, more than any other genotype[/QUOTE]
[/B] Actually I'm more interested in the phenotype. I don't feel anyone should be criticized just for their genes. But for the record, I don't mean my commentary as a criticism. I'm simply defending my personal opinion. Now, what people is their own choice, it isn't causing anyone any harm, but it is simply my personal moral stance that it isn't the 'right' thing to do. Why I am taking so much flak for that is what I don't understand. Do I not have as much of a right to decide if homosexuality is immoral that Schrafinator has to decide it is moral? Am I going around criticizing anyone's opinion on the matter, aside from defending my own? I hope not. Thanks for telling me I don't normally show religious bias, I recognize that as a compliment. I try not to, and usually keep to myself until my own belief system is specifically attacked. I, frankly, would have had nothing to do with this homosexuality debate at all (it's boring and doesn't interest me, and I try to maintain a live-and-let-live attitude about that sort of thing) if the opposition had not started it off with an attack on the position of the LDS church. She's right, my participation in the church is a new thing. However, even before I joined, I considered singling out Joseph Smith/LDS highly distasteful. Schraf justified the attack on LDS by pointing out that the organization is large...but it is only the fifth largest church in the US. There are four larger organizations to attack first. If she wanted to target something why not the Catholics (that would be most appropriate, she is of a Catholic background) or the Baptists (they're much bigger than we are, and often highly conservative). We have grown, but are still a minority. True, maybe I should not let this get personal, but when another participant attacks my church, especially knowing that I am an active member of that church, and the only known member here, then it becomes very personal, and I just don't know any way around it. [This message has been edited by gene90, 10-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: How do people deny their phenotype? And if homosexuality actually IS a phenotype, how can you judge that behaviour, any more than having brown eyes etc etc? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3824 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]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.
[/QUOTE] [/B] (Apologies to the moderators for the excessively long quote, but I needed all of it.) The president and prophet of the church that you pointed out uses "so-called" is 92 years old. He was my age before the Second World War. Back in those days the word "gay" meant "merry". The word was not even associated with homosexuality until 1953 and then it was slang.Homosexuality entered the pop culture (and we all learned the new definition of "gay") much later than that. The word "Lesbian" was coined in 1703 but this dictionary uses the primary definition as "of or related to Lesbos". (Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1989)
[QUOTE][B]How else is "so-called" generally used to mean something else, Gene?[/QUOTE] [/B] In reference to new slang. "These so-called skaters..." "This so-called metal music" Yes it can be meant in a derogatory sense but you have to look at the context, and consider the speaker. And if, as you have consistently claimed, the LDS church refuses to acknowledge that gay people are "really" gay then why does President Hinckley, in that very same message, contradict your interpretation bypointing out that for some people, those urges are overwhelming and difficult to control? It sounds like he's admitting some people are very prone to homosexuality, by nature of their biology, the exact opposite of your claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3824 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]How do people deny their phenotype?[/QUOTE]
[/B] Through self-control. Genetic predisposition to certain behaviors does not necessarily justify those behaviors. True, brown eyes are a phenotype. But so are violent rages and sociopathic behaviors, self-destructive tendencies, etc. If simply being biologically inclined to being gay automatically makes it morally sound to be gay, then doesn't being biologically inclined to violence make whatever might happen in a violent outburst, morally acceptable as well. Now, I've already made this analogy and lots of people (perhaps deliberately) misinterpreted me to think I was equating homosexuality with murder. Please don't make that mistake, I think homosexual behavior is very very minor in importance as far as moral breaches go while hurting others is a huge breach. But the analogy still stands...if genetics justifies one behavior, then it *must* justify another or you are inconsistent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3824 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]Cystic fibrosis is genetic (to name but a single example). Is that unnatural? Would you reserve the same feelings for these people as you would homosexuals?[/QUOTE]
[/B] Cystic fibrosis is not a behaviorism. With a behaviorism, you have a certain degree of free will. You can't choose to not have cystic fibrosis if you've got the right genes, and you can't choose to not have homosexual tendencies if you have those genes. But you can choose to not have sex with somebody.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark:
[B]How do people deny their phenotype? Gene:Through self-control.[/QUOTE] [/B] Perhaps I should have asked, WHY should they deny their phenotype, when they are harming no-one?
quote: True, but then people who have genetic disorders that harm others should be treated with understanding too, wouldn't you say? Or are you a lock-em-up-&-throw-away-the-key kind of a bloke? Regardless, it's neither here nor there, we are talking about people who do NOT harm others in any way, purely by dint of their sexuality. Mark
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024