Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2007 13:12:23 GMT -4
My church never condmned left-handidness (and a good thing, since I am left-handed).
In any case, no I'm not really equating homosexual activity with a rape.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 12, 2007 13:41:40 GMT -4
Well, another similarity between left-handedness and homosexuality is that it is something you can't help, and it's somewhat un-standard (I had to teach myself to use the mouse right handed because I'm the only left handed person in the family, also there's a lot of stuff designed for right handed people like mugs and scissors and stuff like that).
The difference is that there are no stupid offending prejudices on left handedness. You can joke about prejudices like "you're so clumsy, you're probably left-handed!" and "your handwriting is horrible, left handed?" It's a lot harder with homosexuality. Although the 'gay behavior' prejudice does appear funny to me sometimes. (Don't get me wrong on that, I am absolutely not anti-gay. I just see it as the same thing as the 'lefthandedness-clumsy' relationship.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that before WW2, in the Netherlands it was not uncommon for left handed people to have their left hand tied up on their back so they could only use their right hand. That's actually what started me to post this.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2007 13:50:15 GMT -4
My point being - an argument was made that since no one would want to chose to be part of a minority that is descriminated against that homosexuality must be an inborn trait.
My counter argument is that lots of people engage in behavior that makes them part of a minority that is descriminated against (pathological gamblers, alcoholics, nicotine addicts, murderers, rapists, theives, etc.). Are these all inborn traits, or is the first argument invalid?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 12, 2007 13:53:21 GMT -4
The difference is that there are no stupid offending prejudices on left handedness. Not anymore. I remember visiting a pioneer village when I was a kid and they told us about how back in the early 1800's if you were caught using your left hand to write in school they would wack your hand with a leather strap. And why? Besides being considered somehow offensive to religious people back then, what difference did it make which hand people wrote with? Even my mother (who was born in 1950) was forced to become right handed when she was a kid. I know they tried to make me write with my right hand too, but not forcefully and they gave up pretty quickly. And now the only thing I do exclusively with my left hand is write, I'm ambidextrous (or maybe I should say "equally clumsy") for everything else.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 12, 2007 14:27:32 GMT -4
I'm not sure that "obviously distasteful" is much of an improvement, but never mind.
Homosexuality is clearly "natural" in that it occurs in nature, and not solely in Homo sapiens. While the "gay gene" is a gross oversimplification, it does seem to be heritable (although obviously not directly). About the only level of choice involved is that some homosexuals have been able to choose to conceal it.
Are these all inborn traits, or is the first argument invalid?
A false dichotomy, but there does seem to be what may be called an addictive personality type. Some people seem able to smoke, drink, gamble, screw, take all kinds of drugs more or less on a whim, and stop just as easily; others find themselves entrapped from the first experience: not much "choice" there.
Immoral has been a moveable feast: the ancient Greeks famously valued homosexual relationships higher than some heterosexual ones (even my school-age edition of the Iliad and Odyssey referred to Patrocles as Achilles' "companion" rather than the weasel-word "nephew" of Troy) and to some Native American societies, their homosexuals were sacred. I'm sure there are other examples.
There are still remnants of the prejudice against left-handedness in the language: one can be adroit or gauche, and see Lunar Orbit's sinister use of "ambidextrous"...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2007 15:03:42 GMT -4
I'm not sure that "obviously distasteful" is much of an improvement, but never mind. I have to use "obviously distasteful" for my argument to work. If I argued that "nobody choses to be a millionare" then I wouldn't have a point. You are concentrating on the behavior itself and what you think I am saying about it while missing my logical point. If these are not all unavoidable inborn traits then the original premise that no one ever choses to become a member of a descriminated-against minority is false.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2007 15:10:00 GMT -4
Homosexuality is clearly "natural" in that it occurs in nature, and not solely in Homo sapiens. From what I have heard typically some unnusual stress must be present in an environment before homosexual behavior will emerge in a given animal population. And of course a strictly homosexual animal will not reproduce and transfer its genes to the next generation. I can accept that there may be some heritable propensity towards homosexual behavior, but I disagree that this means the individual has no choice in the matter. And I have heard of studies done on identical twins that have failed to detect a genetic link with homosexuality (identical twins have the same genes, so if homosexuality were genetic this would be the obvious place to find evidence, and if one twin is gay then the other should be as well).
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Jun 12, 2007 16:53:45 GMT -4
Well, it seems clear to me that we can definitely conclude that religion is gad. Or bood.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 12, 2007 17:54:10 GMT -4
From what I have heard typically some unnusual stress must be present in an environment before homosexual behavior will emerge in a given animal population. And of course a strictly homosexual animal will not reproduce and transfer its genes to the next generation. You've heard wrong, and you've been told that before. There are many, many examples of homosexuality in non-human species in the wild. They've been observed many, many times. In fact, homosexuality runs in my family, as does left-handedness. My great aunt was a lesbian, and my older sister's probably about 60% straight, 40% gay. Both of my paternal grandparents were left-handed by nature; one was broken of the habit by teachers, and the other couldn't be, not matter how hard the teachers tried. To me, another way the two are similar, including genetic nature and approximate percentage of the population, is that it's possible to be forced out of your natural inclination by societal pressure, but you still carry the genes. I think it's readily apparent that homosexuality is recessive, so it doesn't need to be passed on to one's own children; one's sibling's children may well inherit the genes from straight parents who just happen to have the recessive trait. Jason, are you aware how high the percentage of suicide among gay teens is? And it's precisely because they didn't choose, and they're being taught that the feelings they have are sinful and wrong. They're trapped between natural feelings and bigotry.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 12, 2007 18:18:04 GMT -4
not to mention that it is a moot point to consider the detrimental effects on nature. many of the things we do are not driven by a need to propagate the species. Homosexuality is not detrimental to the species because we obviously can get along fine either way. As I said earlier, there is no justification for discrimination Jason. Nothing you can say makes it okay to discriminate against homosexuals. Attempting to find fault in their behavior is offensive no matter what your point is.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2007 18:29:06 GMT -4
You've heard wrong, and you've been told that before. There are many, many examples of homosexuality in non-human species in the wild. They've been observed many, many times. I think I'm correct on the idea that a strictly homosexual animal doesn't reproduce. In any case, does this prove that it's solely genetic, or can environment still be a factor? And if the tendency is genetic in animals, what does that really say for human beings, who have much more self-awareness and choice than animals? Only if you begin with the premise that homosexuality is a genetic trait. I think you're over-generalizing. How are these teens you speak of identified as gay? If it's through past homosexual encounters then they were underage and it was abuse, not voluntary conduct. People who are sexually abused often have serious emotional problems. If the identification is being made from the teens' own expressed prefrences, that still leaves open the question of whether they came by these prefrences through their environment or through genetics alone. Can anyone who hasn't committed suicide really fully understand the mind of someone who has?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jun 12, 2007 18:44:05 GMT -4
Of religions I see two distinct kinds. Call them or label them as you wish. I still see them divided into two distinct camps.
There are the ones that people may leave from time to time usually as part of teen rebellion and yet they often, later in life, return to. And then there are the ones that people struggle to leave and once they leave they never return. Never. No matter what. It is unthinkable for them once they have left to return again.
This second type reminds me of the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes: "A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions."
For this particular sort of religion I must say is, in fact, a bad thing. It should be dissolved by critical thinking and critique if, for nothing else, to save the next generation untold anguish. We should save our kind from mental prisons worst that the most confining physical kinds.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 12, 2007 20:10:10 GMT -4
I think I'm correct on the idea that a strictly homosexual animal doesn't reproduce. In any case, does this prove that it's solely genetic, or can environment still be a factor? And if the tendency is genetic in animals, what does that really say for human beings, who have much more self-awareness and choice than animals? Strictly homosexual humans can and do when forced by a bigoted society to marry to hide their "dirty secret." Poor Rock Hudson was forced by his studio to marry so that no one would know. There are a lot of genetic factors humans cannot overcome. There are others that can be but are then not the person behaving in a way that is true to their nature. There should only be a reason for a homosexual person to betray their born nature if you go in with the belief that homosexuality is wrong. Since I do not, I see no reason to force a homosexual person to sleep with the opposite sex in order to be "normal." Well, you know, that's what the research supports. In order to believe that it's environmental, there would have to be an environmental aspect to homosexuals' childhoods that did not occur in the lives of most heterosexuals. Since children of the same household are not necessarily of the same sexual orientation, this is clearly not true. As for the choice thing . . . well, the level of ignorance in suggesting it is pretty astounding. How much research into the subject have you done, Jason? Not all underage sex is abuse. If both parties are underage, it's not abuse. Their identification often comes from their journals or suicide notes. The fact that most teenagers who commit suicide over sexual orientation are not openly gay should tell you something. A lot of these kids, the ones who kill themselves, come from deeply religious households. Their parents have told them repeatedly that all homosexuals are evil, are sinners, are hellbound. Society tells them the same thing (a vast majority of the American population is Christian). They grow up feeling a certain way and being told that having those feelings makes them unworthy of God's love. How would you feel? Oh, yes. Let me tell you about suicidal depression, Jason, since you don't know. (Lucky you.) It's not even that you want to cry, though you do--that would be feeling something. All you know is that you're worthless. Beyond worthless. You are actually harmful to everyone you know and love. They would all be better off if you'd never been born, though of course you can't arrange that. You can take away the problems now, though; you can make them never have to deal with you again. Further, you yourself would never feel this way again, this crushing numbness. You want to hurt yourself because pain is better than this. And if death really is oblivion, well, what's the difference? Clearly, God has forsaken you, so does it really matter if suicide is unforgivable? You'd be going to Hell anyway because everything about you is so horrible. So you start thinking about ways. Are you a pill type? Slitting the wrists? Suffocation? This step is called "suicidal ideation" in the literature, and it's more specific than just thinking about suicide. It's coming up with a plan. For example, you could throw yourself off the Arroyo Seco bridge. It's been a fashionable suicide spot for a hundred years or so because it's high enough and with a hard enough bottom to ensure the job pretty thoroughly. So yeah, even if you don't attempt but survive, it's pretty possible for someone to understand the mindset of someone who's actually gone through with it. The reason I haven't is, well, I moved away from the Arroyo Seco, and there's nothing nearby that I'm sure is high enough to do the job. (For the record, no, I'm not going to kill myself. I'm in regular therapy, and we're working on the right meds, though my clinic doesn't have someone who can adjust my dosage until September, because Gods forbid we treat mental health care like any other health care. Besides, I wouldn't do it while Graham was in a civil war in another country; he doesn't need the additional stress, and I don't think the Army would let him come home.)
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jun 12, 2007 20:24:39 GMT -4
I think I'm correct on the idea that a strictly homosexual animal doesn't reproduce. In any case, does this prove that it's solely genetic, or can environment still be a factor? And if the tendency is genetic in animals, what does that really say for human beings, who have much more self-awareness and choice than animals? Strictly homosexual humans can and do when forced by a bigoted society to marry to hide their "dirty secret." Poor Rock Hudson was forced by his studio to marry so that no one would know. Genetic oddities come up all the time due to more factors than just being passed on. Color Blindness is one example. It skips a generation. Some kinds of dwarfisms exist only in special conditions where the genes of the parents have to be just right. It is conceivable that homosexuality is something like that. Of course, it could be a choice, just like physical handicaps are choices. (that is a joke) I think that people who believe that homosexuality is a choice probably have never met a homosexual. And, by the way, homosexuality DOES exist in other species. Some ground breaking research on homosexuality and the brain has come from studying the brain tissue of male mountain goats who only mount other male mountain goats. So that puts a sinking hole in Jason's theory that homosexuality could not exist in Nature. I did not know this discussion thread was centered on homosexuality. I hope my last comment is not overlooked.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2007 21:24:43 GMT -4
Yeah, why do my religion threads tend to have so much discussion of homosexuality in them? Is that the only thing you guys think about when it comes to religion?
|
|