homosexuality

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."

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.)"

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?

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[B][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]

​

Are you telling me that the writings of the president are not reviewed by anyone else before being made public? He has no assistance to make sure everything is clear?

​

I wonder why he just didn't use the word "homosexual", then?

​

quote:

---

How else is "so-called" generally used to mean something else, Gene?

---

​

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by mark24:

​

Perhaps I should have asked, WHY should they deny their phenotype, when they are harming no-one?

​

Because to a theist sex for pleasure is evil and dirty and a sin and thus must be denied to one's self. You know the so-called Original Sin nonsense.

​

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-26-2002]

---

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Of course, not all theists are christians, and not all christians are catholic, and catholics are the only ones who believe in original sin.

---

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:

---

[b]The broad paintbrush you like to use is inaccurate and not what I would call an asset to debate.[/quote]

​

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]--False [/QUOTE]

​

Yes, you're beliefs are false. It is a major teaching that sex for pleasure is a sin. It is only the heretic sects which say otherwise.

---

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.

quote:

---

BUT, it can be viewed as wrong from an evolutionary/biological standpoint quite easily. The point of life is the propogation of species, and obviously people engaged in purely homosexual relations will never fullfill their evolutionary destiny.

---

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:

---

Obviously that can be construed as a "bad" thing and therefore homosexuality must be bad since it could concievable lead to the extinction of humans.

---

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
[B]

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:

---

Right, but IF homosexuality IS genetic, then those genes can be passed, and CAN become a dominant trait that COULD lead to the majority having only homosexual intercourse?

---

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:

---

As to why sex is pleasurable, since we will only have one child at a time normally, and the rate at which females can reproduce is once every 12-13 months, and up until recently child mortality wasnt so hot, we needed to make sure we had as many children as possible. Given the small window of opportunity there needs to be a reason to have sex as often as possible to increase the chances of copulation, hence sex feels good.

---

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:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Definelty, hence my personal feelings.. But, and lets play what-if, what if the "gay genes" became dominant, and over the course of the next 100 years that small minority became the vast majority? Would you still feel the same way?

​

I am 99% sure that that wont happen, but it can't hurt to think about it, since all that will do is give you a further understanding of where this argument is coming from.

---

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:

---

Just to make sure everyone knows, I am just playing Devil's Advocate, I really don't have strong feelings about the topic one way or another..

​

Red

---

I know you are just making an argument, don't worry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

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.

​

​

And while I'm at it maybe you should work on your sense of humour as well.

---

We weren't talking about me.

[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!

[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.

quote:

---

As far as I know they are also the only other species that get pleasure from the act.

​

This is a very broad statement. How do you know?

---

quote:

---

I don't know for sure, but I have never come accross any research that demonstrates any animal having sex for purely pleasurable motives. Even the bonobo monkies are have sex to reduce group aggression not because it just feels good.

---

Um, maybe it reduces agression precisely because it feels good???

[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:

---

Covered most of this above, but one other point. I am not sure its "social" bonding as much as it is woman bonding. Men do not typically become emotionally bonded to a women they mate with, women on the other hand do.

---

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:

---

Now before I really stick my foot in my mouth and go home to an empty house and a note from my wife with comments about bonding and taking my stuff and shoving it, I'm stop.

---