Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Don't turn my God-fearing kid gay!
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 151 of 196 (204183)
05-01-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by joshua221
05-01-2005 6:41 PM


since the beginning of time? What about ancient greece, where having sex with boys was considered par for the course for any aspiring philopher, including Plato (from whom you derive your notion of universality, by the way). in ancient greece, the military believed that homosexuality was a good thing because it generated a sense of comradeship. People who didn't give up their gayness at adulthood were rather ridiculed, but it was definitely considered normal and virtuous for an adventurous young man to have plenty of gay sex before time came for them to be a good member of society and have a family.
mick
[edited to add image of cheerful greek gay encounter. They put this stuff onto their dinnerware!]
[edited again to point out, I think that's just a suggestive twist of cloth, and not his cock]
Edited by AdminJar to size the picture
edited again. I couldn't resist adding this wine vase showing some cheerful fellows making wine (probably prior to a gay orgy). For some reason these chaps have horse's tails (both front and rear )
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 05-02-2005 11:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 6:41 PM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by cmanteuf, posted 05-02-2005 11:08 AM mick has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 152 of 196 (204209)
05-01-2005 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by joshua221
05-01-2005 6:41 PM


anti-gay societies are "unnatural"
society has [considered homosexuality abnormal] since the beginning of time
The important thing about your point is that society can be changed. It isn't a fact of nature.
Many would say that homosexuality IS a fact of nature. Therefore it's human society that is "unnatural".
National Geographic website writes:
Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter.
Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn't risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day "the birds and the bees" generally meant only one thingsex between a male and female.
But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.
Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behaviorentwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.
Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.
Filmmakers recently went in search of homosexual wild animals as part of a National Geographic Ultimate Explorer documentary about the female's role in the mating game. (The film, Girl Power, will be screened in the U.S this Saturday at 8 p.m. ET, 5 p.m PT on MSNBC TV.)
The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.
"The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing," says National Geographic Ultimate Explorer correspondent, Mireya Mayor. "You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males."
Well, perhaps, in a roundabout way, they are seeking males, suggests primatologist Amy Parish.
She argues that female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy which in turn influences breeding success. Parish says, "Taking something that's nonreproductive, like mounting another femaleif it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success."
Sexual Gratification
On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."
Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, "If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it."
The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.
Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.
"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural.
added in edit: you have to check out this wonderful article: http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html
it gives a rather beautiful view of bonobo homosexuality - we (humans) should be more like them. Yes, i am proposing widespread bisexuality as a way of making people more chilled out. I can't wait to have kids of my own, I'm going to bring 'em up proper!
This message has been edited by mick, 05-01-2005 11:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 6:41 PM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 05-02-2005 6:19 AM mick has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 153 of 196 (204248)
05-02-2005 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by joshua221
05-01-2005 6:41 PM


I noted that society has since the beginning of time.
You had a point when you said society views it as not normal. You lost your point by adding since the beginning of time.
Even if we counted "beginning of time" as the literal Biblical account, you can see that that is inaccurate. The Bible is quite plain that many, if not most, societies at that time (at least the ones around the Hebrews) were practicing/accepting homosexual sex acts (which is different than being homosexual).
Indeed, if I remember right, it does not even indicate that homosexuality or such sex acts were denounced among followers of Abraham until the Mosaic laws were introduced. Some scholars have suggested that this was to help form an identity for the Israelites.
Generally homosexual sex acts were not thought of as anything in the ancient world, though effeminate males were not regarded highly.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 6:41 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by joshua221, posted 05-02-2005 9:06 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 154 of 196 (204250)
05-02-2005 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by mick
05-01-2005 11:19 PM


Re: anti-gay societies are "unnatural"
As much as I am prosex, I am also against overreaching in one's arguments.
it gives a rather beautiful view of bonobo homosexuality - we (humans) should be more like them.
I think this is overreaching. First of all bonobos are not homosexual, they simply have no set sexual identities at all. Second why is there sexuality any more or less beautiful than any other animal's sexual nature?
The best I think can be said is that the Bonobos probably exhibit the closest paradigm to raw or "natural" human sexual behavior than any other animal species, and that maybe we should recognize that sexual identity generally is not so fixed and perhaps we don't need to be so afraid of all of its manifestations. That is to say there is no "harm" intrinsically arising from sexual activity.
Yes, i am proposing widespread bisexuality as a way of making people more chilled out. I can't wait to have kids of my own, I'm going to bring 'em up proper!
This to me is just as ridiculous as saying you are proposing widespread heterosexuality. It is a utopian ideal which will not fit everyone, will certainly not answer all of society's ills, nor even be enjoyed by your kids.
I think you'd be better off advocating widespread tolerance and realism regarding human sexuality, so that labels such as homo-, hetero-, bi-, etc etc become meaningless in a moral or political context, or even descriptive of a person's identity.
In any case, if you are going to advocate raising your kids with Bonobo sexual proclivities, you may find a bit more issues you'll have to overcome than just homosexual sex bigotry. They also practice bestiality, sex with children, incest, and a sort of primitive prostitution.
That is of course not to mention they don't have a lot of foreplay and the sex acts take a few seconds.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by mick, posted 05-01-2005 11:19 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by mick, posted 05-02-2005 11:36 AM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 155 of 196 (204268)
05-02-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Silent H
05-01-2005 3:19 PM


quote:
It is also the same argument used against polyamorous/polygamous couples,
As long as the people are all adults and are not coerced, I think it's fine.
quote:
incestuous (adult) couples,
As a general rule, incest is to be avoided because we know that it leads to inbred, defective offspring.
quote:
and couples where one or more of the participants are below and arbitrary age (though obviously of child bearing age in this case).
Gee, are you only talking about the female being younger in such a situation, since you specifically mention child bearing?
Being physically able to bear a child does not mean an individual is emotionally or mentally mature enough to handle the stong feelings brought about by a sexual relationship, especially when the other party is much older. It also does not mean that an individual is capable of raising a child, should one be produced.
The average age for a first period for girls is 11 but it is not unusual for many to begin menstruating at as young as 8 years old.
Boys reach puberty between the ages of 11 and 15.
Added by edit: Although it is historically normal for children, especially girls, and sometimes boys, to get married very young, the age at which girls get their period, and thus are able to bear children NOW, is very different from even the fairly recent past.
The average age of first menstruation in the West is far, far younger than it was even a few generations ago; it went down from 17 to around 11 years in the last 150 years.
I don't think that there is any doubt that a 17 year old is much more ready, even in our culture, to take on adult responsibilities and to live indepenently compared to a 11 or 12 year old.
When humans were pre-industrial and living in hunter/gatherer clans, and the lifespan was much shorter, it made sense to start breeding young, because there was not a great deal of abstract information that needed to be imparted in order to be successful as a hunter/gatherer. People only lived into their 30's in those days, too, and the mortality rate for children was high, so the sooner one started to have children, the more likely it would be that some would survive.
In today's relatively technologically advanced society, we do not generally consider an 8, or even an 11 year old child capable of raising a child, earning a living, etc., because they don't have anywhere near the education or social skills or maturity required in our culture to be successful as an independent entity.
I mean, let's say we decided it was OK for a 45 year old man to marry and have children with an 11 year old girl, because she has begun having her period and can bear children. Well, let's say she gets pregnant right away and bears the child, but he has a heart attack and dies. Is this 11 or 12 year old child able to work and raise this infant all on her own? Perhaps she might have been able to do so in the hunter/gatherer clan social system, but not in today's culture.
We also now know that there are certain risks to the health of girls who get pregnant at a very young age (before 15), and also to the infants they bear.
Of course, the sexual attraction of old males to young females stems from the male's evolutionary drive to create as many offspring as possible, with as many females as possible, and youth in a female implies fertility, and is thus viewed as attractive.
However, while this drive may have worked and been neccessary for the continuation of the species in the hunder/gatherer culture, it doesn't work as well now, in our culture. We have also decided, rightly so, that sexual coersion, particularly of unsophisticated, immature youngsters is wrong.
So, I think that having "arbitrary" minimum consent ages is sensible and reflects the reality of what it takes to function as an independent adult in our culture. Does it mean that some people who really are mature enough to have sex will have to wait to be within the law? Yes. But it will protect the majority who are not mature enough. It's just like minimum age requirements for getting a driver's license. Sure, there are some 13 year olds tall enough to reach the pedals and have the cognitive ability to drive, but most are not. So, the gifted 13 year old drivers will have to wait.
quote:
Indeed I have just recently seen the same argument made against women who work as prostitutes.
What about children who work as prostitutes? Or males, or transgendered people?
Anyway, I'd much rather work for a world in which people have sex with other people because they want to not because they have to to survive.
quote:
My question to you is only this: do you maintain a consistent position and defend all of the above, or just homosexuality/interracial/interfaith relationships?
I'm not attempting to pick a fight, but to figure out where you stand.
I do not hold a consistent position for all of these issues because they are not identical issues.
There are shades of gray and complications that make consistency impossible when I really think about the implications.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-02-2005 11:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Silent H, posted 05-01-2005 3:19 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Silent H, posted 05-02-2005 1:06 PM nator has replied

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6766 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 156 of 196 (204298)
05-02-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by mick
05-01-2005 8:15 PM


mick writes:
in ancient greece, the military believed that homosexuality was a good thing because it generated a sense of comradeship
The Theban Sacred Band, the unit that finally broke the Spartan Hoplites, was 300 men. 150 pairs of homosexual lovers. They were hand-picked by Epaminondas and they were the ones who marked the end of Sparta and the beginning of the Theban Hegemony.
mick writes:
it was definitely considered normal and virtuous for an adventurous young man to have plenty of gay sex before time came for them to be a good member of society and have a family.
It is known that during the 400's and into the 300's Sparta suffered a serious decline in full-citizen population. Many different explanations have been offered over the years (men too busy fighting wars and repressing the helots, increase in Spartan-outsider marriages that created half-caste people not considered full citizens are the two most popular explanations). One of them that is considered a bit outside but not impossible is that the Spartans got so into the sex with boys thing that the number of men who had sex with women declined.
Here are some of the supporting arguments that they use. It is known that Spartan men did not eat with their wives, but in communal halls; that they were supposed to sneak away from their barracks to have sex with the wife for the first couple of years of marriage (and their male friends were supposed to try and catch them and make fun of them on the way); that having an attachment to your wife was looked down upon as much as having an attachment to money or anything other than repressing the helots and fighting wars; and that by the end, at least, Spartan women were dressed as boys for their wedding night.
Does it mean that Sparta declined because they were too homosexual? Probably not, but it is a possibility that can't be ruled out by the evidence.
Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by mick, posted 05-01-2005 8:15 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by mick, posted 05-02-2005 11:43 AM cmanteuf has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 157 of 196 (204303)
05-02-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Silent H
05-02-2005 6:19 AM


Re: anti-gay societies are "unnatural"
Holmes writes:
First of all bonobos are not homosexual, they simply have no set sexual identities at all.
Now I'm not entirely convinced that this is correct. I don't have any evidence on this matter yet, but it just seems wrong to me. It seems wrong to say that humans are born either homosexual or heterosexual, one or the other, but that bonobos "have no set sexual identities". It is reductionism turned upside down, so that human sexuality is apparently a mechanical thing fixed for eternity at birth, but the sexuality of other animals is fluid and complex.
This to me is just as ridiculous as saying you are proposing widespread heterosexuality. It is a utopian ideal which will not fit everyone, will certainly not answer all of society's ills, nor even be enjoyed by your kids.
Yes of course. I was being kind of tongue in cheek here. Though I must say, if I was allowed to have sex with whoever I wanted, and got to live up trees, then I'd probably be a happier person...
That is of course not to mention they don't have a lot of foreplay and the sex acts take a few seconds.
Sounds like you've been talking to my missus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 05-02-2005 6:19 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Silent H, posted 05-02-2005 12:16 PM mick has not replied
 Message 167 by mick, posted 05-02-2005 8:27 PM mick has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 158 of 196 (204305)
05-02-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by cmanteuf
05-02-2005 11:08 AM


I would say that homosexual acts were widespread in Greece and Rome, but homosexuality was not. By homosexuality I mean exclusively homosexual individuals.
In fact in both societies, anybody who was exclusively homosexual was considered effeminate. But this was largely because being a good father and rearing children for the benefit of the empire was highly honoured, and having successful healthy children was considered the pinnacle of achievement for a middle-class man. In these societies, as long as one took one's reproductive responsibilities seriously and had a proper family, one was permitted to engage in homosexual acts on the side.
In Rome this reproductive responsibility was taken much more seriously than in Sparta, and may explain why Rome didn't have the demographic problems of Sparta.
What I'm trying to say in all of this is that homosexual acts haven't been considered abnormal or abhorrent throughout history. This is an argument against people who say that the abnormality of homosexual acts is a cultural universal. I would be willing to grant that such universals may exist (for example incest avoidance seems very widespread) but I don't think attitudes towards homosexuality fall into this category.
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by cmanteuf, posted 05-02-2005 11:08 AM cmanteuf has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 159 of 196 (204310)
05-02-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by mick
05-02-2005 11:36 AM


Re: anti-gay societies are "unnatural"
It seems wrong to say that humans are born either homosexual or heterosexual, one or the other, but that bonobos "have no set sexual identities". It is reductionism turned upside down, so that human sexuality is apparently a mechanical thing fixed for eternity at birth, but the sexuality of other animals is fluid and complex.
Humans, like Bonobos, are not born either homosexual or heterosexual. Before humans began getting moral about sexuality the concept of "homosexuality" as a personal identity didn't even exist.
I think the sexuality of most higher primates is fluid and complex.
And maybe anything with a high intelligence, look at the dolphins as an example.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by mick, posted 05-02-2005 11:36 AM mick has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 160 of 196 (204325)
05-02-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by nator
05-02-2005 9:35 AM


As a general rule, incest is to be avoided because we know that it leads to inbred, defective offspring.
That has been disproven. It is only many generations of inbreeding that can lead to such problems. Actually incest is part of breeding for superior genes within animal husbandry, don't they do that for horses as well?
Gee, are you only talking about the female being younger in such a situation, since you specifically mention child bearing?
The argument being addressed was one which involved children, thus my example had to include someone of child bearing age. But in actuality the female could be older. Remember the recent teacher-student case? She had sex with a very young boy was impregnated twice by him.
Their relationship was rejected by society and we used our courts to tear them apart. After all of that, the boy (now a man) appealed to the courts to remove the restraining order against the woman, and now they are getting (or have gotten) married.
Why was any of this necessary?
Being physically able to bear a child does not mean an individual is emotionally or mentally mature enough to handle the stong feelings brought about by a sexual relationship, especially when the other party is much older.
This is your perception. They have, including in the past. But even if I were to accept the first part of this statement, I am unaware what the age of the other party would have to do with whether the first party can handle giving birth.
The average age of first menstruation in the West is far, far younger than it was even a few generations ago; it went down from 17 to around 11 years in the last 150 years.
I have seen only a few limited studies which do not show that this is true. Given historical and cultural examples of young women giving birth, it seems a bit odd to say this actually happened. But I am open to any data that you have. To head off stuff I have already seen, please give me something that does not hinge on birthrates in Scandinavia.
People only lived into their 30's in those days, too, and the mortality rate for children was high, so the sooner one started to have children, the more likely it would be that some would survive.
Don't confuse our stats for average lifespans in the deep past, with actual lifespans, or potential lifespans. Granted life was cheaper in those days with high mortalities, including childbirth.
That said, I am uncertain why any of this should allow "society" to say that a couple which engages in this should be punished or ostracized in any way different than homosexual couples.
In today's relatively technologically advanced society, we do not generally consider an 8, or even an 11 year old child capable of raising a child, earning a living, etc., because they don't have anywhere near the education or social skills or maturity required in our culture to be successful as an independent entity.
Although I agree with the idea that kids are not going to be able to be providers, I am still unsure what that has to do with the issue at hand. Again this is taking sociological factors we have placed against such relationships in order to argue for its further persecution.
Imagine a society which cared for those that were young and had kids, or any age for that matter, and yet unable to provide sufficiently for a child. This is true in some places, especially societies with extended families. Now what would be the problem?
Perhaps she might have been able to do so in the hunter/gatherer clan social system, but not in today's culture.
In today's culture gays cannot provide for their partners as well as heteros can as they are restricted by societal institutions, the same type of ones you just described. Thus it would seem you should agree there is a difference TODAY, as compared to PAST CULTURES, such that we should limit homosexual relationships.
However, while this drive may have worked and been neccessary for the continuation of the species in the hunder/gatherer culture, it doesn't work as well now, in our culture. We have also decided, rightly so, that sexual coersion, particularly of unsophisticated, immature youngsters is wrong.
Again arguing from an ethnocentric view point to support that ethnocentric viewpoint. It is hard for gays now, thus gays society should not change to make it easier for them?
Are we to change to what is possible for the greatest freedom to all minorities, or for the preservation of current "problems"?
There can be coercion in any relationship, there is no evidence for greater harm intrinsically coming from a cross-age relationship... and I might add I did not say these had to be cross-generational. If you have evidence, you know where you can find my threads on that subject.
Indeed, the Greeks have already been given as an example of homosexuality in this thread and their's was a pedophilic example. Is your argument that they were usually coerced and harmed from that coercion? Are we right now about that, and they were wrong then?
If you feel coercion is not inherent, then are you accepting of no age of consent restrictions on homosexual relationships since they will not bear children?
So, I think that having "arbitrary" minimum consent ages is sensible and reflects the reality of what it takes to function as an independent adult in our culture. Does it mean that some people who really are mature enough to have sex will have to wait to be within the law? Yes. But it will protect the majority who are not mature enough.
This is both ethnocentric and self-fulfilling. In the Netherlands (as an example) the AOC is 12 and they can have kids at that age, and in the US it can be as low as 13. Thus the "arbitrary" aoc you are talking about dips down to the very examples you say need protection. So what then is the reason for AOCs? What do they provide? And if societies do function with AOCs which allow for the examples you think are not able to work out why are we to assume they are necessary at all?
I might add, even if I totally bought into your argument, why wouldn't that simply argue for laws to restrict young pregnancies, or young people raising children by themselves?
And of course I should add that this topic would end up touching on handicapped individuals. Many are incapable of raising children by themselves, but are allowed to have sexual relationships and thus pose the same risk of having children they cannot take care of, as well as being coerced. Thus it would seem you would have to be against sexual relationships involving the mentally handicapped.
Anyway, I'd much rather work for a world in which people have sex with other people because they want to not because they have to to survive.
What happens if they want to have sex in order to earn money? What happens if they honestly see nothing wrong with it and since they like having sex, and it brings in good money, they would prefer that kind of job?
I just realized that this would touch on people who work in porn as well, and in another thread (which you have left hanging) you were arguing that "society" should take precedence over sexual minorities in that case. Remember? Women should not work in porn until the entire society has decided that it is okay and will let them do so? How is that different than our society asking the same thing of gays?
There are shades of gray and complications that make consistency impossible when I really think about the implications.
But actually they are the same when you get down to the root of the situations I have asked about. What you are doing when you "think about the implications" is bring into the argument ethnocentric issues. They are not universal and need not be the case.
Essentially someone against homosexuality could do the same thing. They could say they think its okay except for when they consider the "implications" and then list off the worries they have or conditions they have set up within modern culture.
Please do not take any of the above as if I have said it with a mean or sarcastic intent. I realize you were giving me straight answers from your position. Indeed I think you presented them very well. I am simply trying to show you that in the end you are complicating the questions, or obfuscating them, by introducing a measure of circularity.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 05-02-2005 9:35 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by nator, posted 05-02-2005 10:26 PM Silent H has replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 196 (204408)
05-02-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by crashfrog
04-27-2005 10:34 PM


Sorry, dude, that show is about being gay, or how to be "Metrosexual"
which I guess is how to look gay but be straight.
I watched one episode of that show and I couldn't take it.
Way too gay, almost as bad as watching that movie The Birdcage.
After 10 minutes of that one, I was grabbing for the remote.
Eh, who cares?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by crashfrog, posted 04-27-2005 10:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 196 (204409)
05-02-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Trae
04-28-2005 12:20 AM


No, come on, it's got to be more like 1-2% realistically.
Out of every 100 people you meet, chances are that 1-2 are gay,
not 10-20. That's just too high.
And I guess it depends on where you live and who admits that they are gay.
I've known scores of gay people through life, but one recently is an interesting case. I know a chemistry department isn't any kind of cross-section of society or and kind of microcosm, but out of about 120 grad students, one was quite the closet homosexual.
He denied up and down that he was gay, but every indication pointed to the fact that he was. Actually, he wasn't so much in the closet as he was in denial. See, his family was extremely religious and so was he. I think this led him to his extreme denial. His psychological condition was so extreme that he had this problem with his own feces. He was staying with another grad student who walked in on poop smeared all over the walls in the bathroom. For some reason he also refused to clean it up. (???) Anyway, I know this story was pointless, except to say that it's hard to tell how many gays there are out there, but it's highly unlikely that it's more than a couple percent of the population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Trae, posted 04-28-2005 12:20 AM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by nator, posted 05-02-2005 10:41 PM gnojek has replied
 Message 188 by Trae, posted 05-14-2005 10:33 PM gnojek has replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 196 (204411)
05-02-2005 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by joshua221
05-01-2005 12:13 PM


This "society" you speak of, when and where are the meetings?
Can I be a member?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 12:13 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 196 (204412)
05-02-2005 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Phat
05-01-2005 12:47 PM


Re: What are you suggesting?
Nowadays mine do too.
But I think it has more to do with my dad's snoring and my mom's need for arctic temperatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Phat, posted 05-01-2005 12:47 PM Phat has not replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 196 (204413)
05-02-2005 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by joshua221
05-01-2005 6:41 PM


Except (at least) in ancient Greece (and maybe Rome) where it was quite normal.
edit:
Yes, but all this talk of normalcy leads down a slippery slope.
So since it was normal in Ancient Greece, does this mean that more people engaged in homosexual acts?
I would say based on the above post that they did.
Why can't this happen in modern "society"?
This only strengthens the argument against allowing gays to adopt.
It gives an example of homosexuality being a normal part of the culture and more people doing homosexual acts due simply to that.
This is what the christian right fears will happen.
This message has been edited by gnojek, 05-02-2005 07:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 6:41 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024