Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8869 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2018 2:23 AM
203 online now:
GDR, PaulK (2 members, 201 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,415 Year: 15,238/29,783 Month: 1,182/1,502 Week: 180/492 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
16NextFF
Author Topic:   homosexuality
nator
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 239 (20699)
10-24-2002 10:16 AM


Here's a neat link, and an excerpt:

http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap10/chap10z.htm

"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."


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 10-24-2002 10:20 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 102 by allen, posted 11-14-2002 10:59 AM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 2 of 239 (20700)
10-24-2002 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
10-24-2002 10:16 AM


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.)"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 10-24-2002 10:16 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 3:48 PM nator has responded
 Message 134 by Peter, posted 12-11-2002 8:09 AM nator has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 3 of 239 (20724)
10-24-2002 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
10-24-2002 10:20 AM


You forgot to attack my church.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 10-24-2002 10:20 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 7:09 PM gene90 has not yet responded
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 10-24-2002 8:06 PM gene90 has responded
 Message 8 by nator, posted 10-24-2002 11:00 PM gene90 has responded

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 239 (20741)
10-24-2002 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by gene90
10-24-2002 3:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
You forgot to attack my church.

He's getting to that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 3:48 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 10-24-2002 7:25 PM nos482 has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 239 (20743)
10-24-2002 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nos482
10-24-2002 7:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
You forgot to attack my church.

He's getting to that.


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 7:09 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 8:28 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 239 (20744)
10-24-2002 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by gene90
10-24-2002 3:48 PM


Hi Gene,

Weve both been around here for a while now, & Ive 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 couldnt 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:

The stongest evidence for a genetic contribution to sexual orientation has been provided by Dean Hamer & collaborators (Hamer et al. 1993; Hu et al. 1995; Hamer & Copeland 1994). When they interviewed a large sample of gay men, they found that a much higher proportion of their male relatives on the mothers side of the family than on the fathers side were gay. This pattern suggested that a gene or genes on the X chromosome might contribute to sexual orientation, since men inherit their SINGLE X chromosome from their mothers.

To test this hypothesis, researchers used the AFFECTED PAIRS METHOD (Weiss 1993) to search for X-liked genetic markers. This method tests the hypothesis that a trait shared by pairs of relatives is caused by an allele A at an yet umapped locus. Suppose, that a mother s X chromosome genotype were AM1/AM2 & a fathers genotype were AM1/y, where M1 & M2 are alleles at a marker locus. Fathers transmit Y chromosomes to their sons . If A & M are linked on the X chromosome & the recombination rate is r, then 1-r of the gametes of the AA mother will be non-recombinant, giving rise to affected (A bearing) offspring who also share M2. If r=0, then M marks the trait causing locus itself, & all of the affected siblings will carry the marker allele. A strong association of a trait with a marker thus indicates that a trait is indeed affected by a gene & provides directions to its location.

Hamer et al. Studied 40 pairs of brothers. Using 22 polymorphic DNA markers distributed over the length of the X chromosome, Hamer et al. found that about 50% concordance for several markers in a region (Xq28) near one end of the chromosome. In a later pair of 33 brothers, they found similar results, & also showed that significantly less than 50% of heterosexual brothers of these gay men shared shared the Xq28 markers- just as predicted by the genetic hypothesis.


(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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 3:48 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 10-24-2002 11:02 PM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 7:53 PM mark24 has responded
 Message 14 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:23 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 239 (20746)
10-24-2002 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mark24
10-24-2002 7:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:

She, I think you'll find!

Mark


It's hard to tell over a cable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 10-24-2002 7:25 PM mark24 has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 239 (20753)
10-24-2002 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by gene90
10-24-2002 3:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
You forgot to attack my church.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 3:48 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:11 PM nator has responded
 Message 132 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 4:57 PM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 9 of 239 (20754)
10-24-2002 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
10-24-2002 8:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
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.


Up until very recently, Gene wasn't really a big-time participant in the LDS church, I believe.

This is a relatively new thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 10-24-2002 8:06 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 10 of 239 (20828)
10-25-2002 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
10-24-2002 8:06 PM


[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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 10-24-2002 8:06 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 10-25-2002 8:07 PM gene90 has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 239 (20832)
10-25-2002 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by gene90
10-25-2002 7:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[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.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 7:53 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:18 PM mark24 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 12 of 239 (20833)
10-25-2002 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
10-24-2002 11:00 PM


[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 by
pointing 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 10-24-2002 11:00 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 10-29-2002 10:22 AM gene90 has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 13 of 239 (20836)
10-25-2002 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mark24
10-25-2002 8:07 PM


[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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 10-25-2002 8:07 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 10-26-2002 5:27 AM gene90 has responded
 Message 17 by John, posted 10-26-2002 9:50 AM gene90 has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 14 of 239 (20838)
10-25-2002 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
10-24-2002 8:06 PM


[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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 10-24-2002 8:06 PM mark24 has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 15 of 239 (20870)
10-26-2002 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by gene90
10-25-2002 8:18 PM


[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:
Originally posted by gene90:
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.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:18 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nos482, posted 10-26-2002 7:48 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 18 by gene90, posted 10-26-2002 1:15 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
16NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018