|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 287 of 404:
| 
Nov 11 18:20 UTC 1998 |
Re: #283 - Rane, c'mon, you of all people can't be serious! :-)
Re: #280 - I find use of the word "gay" to mean "homosexual" to be offensive.
Let's everybody get offended!
|
brighn
|
|
response 288 of 404:
|
Nov 11 19:45 UTC 1998 |
"perverted" means "abnormal"
Is homosexuality "abnormal"?
"abnormal" means "not normal."
Is heterosexuality normal?
"normal" means one of two things:
(a) the modal/medial behavior of an object within a particular group
(b) occurring naturally (plausibly) within an otherwise healthy member of a
species
(a) is easy to figure out. The mode of a group is the most frequently
occurring characteristic of that group; the median of a group is the
statistical average of a numerical characteristic. Short of Kinsey's numeric
scale of sexual experience, which has since changed into a scale of sexual
interest, it's difficult to determine a "median" of sexuality. All the same,
I'd wager that the median of sexual experience is around 1.5, mostly
heterosexual; the mode of sexual experience is certainly heterosexual, though
it's uncertain whether the mode of orientation is heterosexuality or
bisexuality... it certainly isn't homosexuality.
So from a statistical standpoint, homosexuality is abnormal.
(b) is the one people really spend all the time arguing about. One the one
side, same-sex behavior occurs in non-humans, and even non-primates, but it's
unclear whether this can be classed as "homosexual" in the same way that it's
unclear that human sexual terms at all can be applied to non-humans, since
they contain clusters of emotions as well as behavior. In my last post, I
point out that the APA doesn't consider homosexuality in and of itself a
mental illness, and there are plenty of humans who are practicing homosexuals
but who are not intherapy for any other reasons, so it appears that, on a
subjective level, homosexuality does, in fact, occur in otherwise healthy
members of the community.
Unfortunately, this is a subjective assessment. While not all homosexuals are
in therapy, incidence of mental and social dysfunction is clearly higher among
the hemosexual population than among the bi/heterosexual population (let me
make it clear that the bisexual population is a transient one, in that it
patterns like the heterosexual one in certain regards and like the homosexual
one on others). The standard -- and I think viable -- argument for this is
that what causes the mental and social dysfunction is not the homosexuality
per se, but societal lack of acceptance of it.
So the preponderence of evidence in this matter says that homosexuality is
normal.
However, we still haven't looked in depth at the *opposite* issue... is
*homophobia* normal?
Inasmuch as homophobia is a form of xenophobia -- fear of strangers, or people
who are different -- yes. A certain level of xenophobia is necessary from an
evolutionary standpoint. Inasmuch as my genes are attempting to find others
which will help them strengthen and propogate within the population, I should
be seeking out people of a similar genetic background, and avoiding people
who don't suit my genetic reproductive needs. Homophobia comes from the same
source that racism, sexism, etc., come from: an externaliztion of what is,
for almost all of us, an internal process: a drive to maximize our own genetic
effect on future generations.
Note that sexism is on the list. While our reproductive systems know that we
must mate with a member of the opposite sex in order to reproduce, our genetic
coding demands that we avoid the opposite sex as much as possible, if we wish
to propogate our own (obviously superior) genes.
These drives, as much as they occur within the brain, go on within the
"lizard" or "amphibian" brain... the oldest portion of our brain. We consider
it vulgar when people *who hold beliefs we don't* act on their inbred
xenophobia, and yet are generally unaware when we act on them ourselves.
Indeed, homosexuality is, in part, rooted in the same drive: Avoiding the
opposite gender. This xenophobic model not only predicts homophobia, it ALSO
predicts homosexuality *as a natural phenomenon*! It contains two main
directives:
(1) Seek those who are similar to you
(2) Avoid those who are dissimilar to you
Taking to its extreme, this xenophobia-driven genetics does NOT strengthen
the species, it ultimately destroys it. If everyone were homosexual, and
refused to even ACT bisexual, the species wouldn't survive long enough to
develop methods of artificial insemination (as a species, now, we are free
to become 100% homosexual, but old habits die hard). Even in a heterosexual
world, this xenophobia has led to inbreeding, which leads to increased birth
defects and decreased immunity. In order to prevent total genetic xenophobia,
genetic development has also evolved to FORCE members of a species to mate
with outsiders or risk annihilation.
Hence, on a genetic level, we must follow a balance between:
(a) Opposites attract
(b) birds of a feather flock together
We must include JUST ENOUGH foreign genetic material into our pool to maintain
health, but in the main, we must reinforce our own genetic make-up.
There it is, from my own spin on genetics.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 289 of 404:
|
Nov 11 22:19 UTC 1998 |
The median is the Q-50 - the 50th percentile. It is not the statistical mean.
|
brighn
|
|
response 290 of 404:
|
Nov 12 00:21 UTC 1998 |
I don't believe I said or suggested that mean and median are the same.
I suppose one might infer that from my using a non-integer for the Kinsey
scale, since it's generally presented as an integer scale, but I also use
half-points (that is, for me, the Kinsey scale runs 0, .5, 1, 1.5, 2, up to
6, as opposed to the more traditional 0, 1, 2, ... up to 6). (Statistical
medians always have to be one of the points on the scale; it can't be between
points on the scale. Means, being mathematical averages, can be between points
on the scale.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 291 of 404:
|
Nov 12 05:07 UTC 1998 |
(Sorry for being picky, but I'm teaching a stats course this term, so
could not resist 8^}. You wrote "the median of a group is the
statistical average of....." in #288.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 292 of 404:
|
Nov 12 05:24 UTC 1998 |
Ah. Point taken. "Average" non-rigorously is ambiguous between mode, median,
and mean, but true, in statistics, it's typically synonymous with "mean."
Now that we've bored everyone else. =}
|
rcurl
|
|
response 293 of 404:
|
Nov 12 05:26 UTC 1998 |
(average cannot mean mode or median as neither requires taking an average
(of two or more things)....keep it under your hat.....)
|
scott
|
|
response 294 of 404:
|
Nov 12 12:00 UTC 1998 |
Hey, dammit, quit drifting! This item is about perverts, and how they
sometimes beat up gay people!
|
mta
|
|
response 295 of 404:
|
Nov 12 14:39 UTC 1998 |
Statisticians aren't perverts? <mild shock>
;)
|
senna
|
|
response 296 of 404:
|
Nov 12 17:05 UTC 1998 |
I read an amusing and highly biased article against Christianity in the paper
yesterday. Nice to know that Christians can be victims of rabid prejudice too.
|
brighn
|
|
response 297 of 404:
|
Nov 12 18:02 UTC 1998 |
"average" in the sense of "typical"... "the average person has two arms"
refers to a mode or a median, but certainly not to a mean (since there are
some one-armed people out there, and no three-armed people that I'm aware of).
The mode of "number of arms" is 2, the median is 2, but the mean is
1.99999995, or something like that.
Likewise, we could either say, "the average American family has 2.3 children"
or "the average American family has 2 or 3 kids" (mode) or "the average
American family has 2 kids" (median)
I'll give you the math argument, but in everyday speech, "average" is
ambiguous, dammit. ;}
Statisticians are perverts only inasmuch as they enjoy teaching it to others,
making them sadists (and hence, according to the APA, mentally ill). ;}
|
rcurl
|
|
response 298 of 404:
|
Nov 12 22:26 UTC 1998 |
In other words, perverts?
|
gregb
|
|
response 299 of 404:
|
Nov 13 16:59 UTC 1998 |
Re. 223: Good post, Jan. I don't remember where/when I first heard about
gays, but I do remember thing, "Yuck, how can anybody do that?" But even
though I was from a conservative family, for some reason I never picked up
my parents views on a lot of things. My opinion was--and still is--that
what people do is their own biz, as long as it's legal and doesn't hurt
anybody. Since then, I've met a few gays and don't think anything of it.
I will admit, however, I was a bit taken aback when I saw lesbians kissing
at a party I went to, but just accepted it as a new experience.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 300 of 404:
|
Nov 13 17:22 UTC 1998 |
Its just putting allowably exposed body parts together, like shaking hands.
Why should anyone notice?
|
brighn
|
|
response 301 of 404:
|
Nov 13 17:58 UTC 1998 |
Because it's dirty, sick, and perverted.
Not like when straight people do it.
That's fine.
|
brown
|
|
response 302 of 404:
|
Nov 14 09:01 UTC 1998 |
actually (um re:299)
can't say i still don't take notice to ( for ex:) lesbians kissing..
well, i notice ANY PDA's to some extent
but it isn't the "norm" for the general public
(for lack of better words)
and even most of my female friends (most being gay/bi)
are rather discrete.
hmm, Can't say what i feel or think really, just that i take
notice..
I'm living downtown "boystown"
Chicago's version ofgreenwich villiage basically
rainbow flags fly for more than a mile from my place on Northalstead
it is impossible to find a bar or store that doesn't um 'cater' to
gays yet every weekend on my way home from work i "notice" the boys
on their way home from the bars
<no snickering>
o.k. so at this point i think i lost track of ANY point i may have
been trying to make but ah-well ;)
|
joe
|
|
response 303 of 404:
|
Nov 14 16:39 UTC 1998 |
Measures of Central Tendancies are not very useful when trying to determine
the average sexual orientation of a population since it is completely unknown
just how many people in this world are homo, or bi. It's also nearly
impossibly to obtain an unbiased, totally random selection of the population.
Sexual orientation is a personal issue for most people and a lot of people
really don't like to share that info with others. I remember working for
Greenpeace some years ago. Management decided to do a diversity survey, but
the only minority that was excluded was a catogory for gays and lesbians. I
was a little pissed so I called the woman that did the research and she
explained to me that she originally created a catagory for gays & lesbians,
but as she was calling each of the offices around the country, no one would
give her information on how many gays & lesbians worked for the country
because they didn't know, nor would anyone step forward to be counted. I
instructed her to redo the survey and include a catagory even if I was the
only person on the list. She eventually did, but I thought it was a bit
ridiculous that out of an organization with over 10,000 employees throughout
30 different offices throughout the country, including San Francisco, that
there was only one openly gay person-- and Greenpeace, the world's largest
environmental organization, was one of the most liberal and progressive
organizations on the planet.
The point to all of this is that the power of statistical validity if greatly
reduced with a population selection that does not represent the true
population. Now, having said that, back to the regular discussion...
|
bru
|
|
response 304 of 404:
|
Nov 14 20:58 UTC 1998 |
or maybe there aren't as many gay people as you wish there were...
|
joe
|
|
response 305 of 404:
|
Nov 15 18:40 UTC 1998 |
well, I've never bought the "one out of ten" theory, but I'd like to believe
that there's more of us than 1 out of 10,000. This is just a prime example
of how skewed statistical research can get. Imagine how impossible it would
be to get accurate data on how many minorities lived in the US if all of them
were somehow able to disguise themselves as Anglo Americans. The data would
be useless.
|
bookworm
|
|
response 306 of 404:
|
Nov 17 05:59 UTC 1998 |
For the sake of those of us with short attention spans. Could I convince you
guys to keep it to less than a page, please?
|
lumen
|
|
response 307 of 404:
|
Nov 17 07:26 UTC 1998 |
re #302: Wow, I've gotta see this place..
re #303: I think *everyone, everywhere* has their biases, hiding places,
myths, etc. etc. Even minorities and minority-friendly groups exclude some
people.
i.e. it is interesting to note that even people of color have derogatory terms
for those of mixed ethnicity
|
brighn
|
|
response 308 of 404:
|
Nov 17 15:12 UTC 1998 |
#306: Do what I do. Skip the long posts. There's no reason why everyone should
have to read everything posted here... it's not like this is a job or
anything. It's a conversation, and, as with real life, you might miss things
that some people have to say, or find them uninteresting. Life goes on.
|
brown
|
|
response 309 of 404:
|
Nov 18 07:53 UTC 1998 |
sorry brighn, did you say something?
|
brighn
|
|
response 310 of 404:
|
Nov 18 17:48 UTC 1998 |
I may have had a technical problem... post #309 was blank.
Did anyone else have that problem? ;}
|
keesan
|
|
response 311 of 404:
|
Nov 18 23:40 UTC 1998 |
Just got around to reading this very long discussion. I respect Kenton for
supporting his beliefs, particularly as they differ from those of most of the
other participants in this conference (in other words, they are, at least for
grex, 'abnormal'). Kenton, if you are still around, could you explain to us
how you happened to have opinions on homosexuals when you say you never knew
any? Where did you get your facts? I suspect they may be close to majority
opinion for people where you live (very rural Pennsylvania), in which case
this is a valuable chance for people in grex to actually have a civil (most
of the time) discussion with someone trying to explain the reasons for such
opinions. I also strongly suspect that if Kenton actually knew as many
homosexuals as the average person in Ann Arbor (and knew that he knew them),
his opinions would change.
To draw a parallel, Kenton was a highly active participant in the
dowsing discussion (a few agoras ago, linked to paranormal). He grew up in
a society where it was normal to dowse, and began dowsing from an early age.
Rane, on the other hand, who does not know any dowsers personally (at least
not any close friends or relatives), does not believe dowsing even exists,
or if it does, a rod going down in someone's hands is something they do by
choice. I thought dowsing was a big hoax until a few years ago, because of
the silly stuff I read about angels and earth spirits and dowsing for lost
keys and the like. That was until Jim, who has never lied to me, dowsed on
his very first try, and consistently, even with his eyes shut. He has no idea
why it works for him and not for me. I will probably never learn to dowse,
Jim learned immediately, other people may be able to learn after a while.
Similarly, some people have always had homosexual feelings, some never will,
and some may have them only if exposed to certain environments.
I think it is wonderful that there is a such a broad range of
individual talents and features, that is what has allowed humankind to spread
into so many different environments. Even if one feature, say the ability
to dowse or to develop a strong emotional and physical attachment to a member
of the same sex, is not particularly advantageous in most environments, in
the long run is has obviously been beneficial to society, since it persists.
(Schizophrenia, Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, and some other diseases also
benefit society under certain conditions, just not the individual.)
Rane, I suggest that some day you watch Jim dowsing, and Kenton, I
suggest that you take the time to read the discussions in the glb conf, in
order to collect more facts on which to base your opinions.
I also thought I did not know any homosexuals until I came to Ann Arbor
(where this is not something to hide), but then one day my mother mentioned
that her best friend's son, who had gotten divorced, had AIDS and was living
with another man. And a friend from high school mentioned that his brother,
who had gotten divorced (in both cases there were children), had move to
Provincetown (a gay community on the tip of Cape Cod). Which all goes to show
that you can't spot a gay person unless they want to be spotted. I have known
lots of men with mannerisms and interests closer to the norm for women, and
vice versa for women, and most of them were not homosexual.
Sorry for the long entry, but it is my only one. And I want to say
that I am glad that Kenton has been willing to tackle most of grex in defense
of what he believes to be right, just as I am glad that Rane persisted in
challenging just about everything I said in dowsing - it gets people thinking.
|