Homosexuality and lesbianism have often been depicted as the
perverted opposite to heterosexuality.. but is this really the case?
It may be that homo/les is the norm, and that heterosexuality is only
considered normal because of societal pressure.. or does this polarity
issue may miss the point entirely. What if bisexuality is the natural
state of sexuality in Human beings, and that we are forced by society to
choose where we take our pleasure from.
Or, what if we aren't even *that* predetermined in orientaton?
What if the natural state of human sexuality is to seek pleasure, no
matter the source?
What do you think?
211 responses total.
i agree with the last one....however, due to the fact that the race must con0 tinue, there are alot of hereros or bi's......
I think that in nature we are drawn to people of the opposite sex in order to create new life, well not just for that reason, but biologically speaking, but there are so many great qualities of the same sex, why is unnatural to be srawn to someone of the same sex. If they can fulfill your needs then that is great.
I'm too much of a biologist. Heterosexuality is probably the norm. But I beleive that sex in any form is for pleasure and social bonding. <You know all of those feelings that are created by having sex> But on the other hand, homosexuality is probably not selected against. But I'm running out of time so I will elaborate later. :)
Alright.. <Selena waits for elaboration..>
There could be some selevctive pressure to favor homosexulity, most of the world for most of history, marriage was universal, few people didnt get married. So If a person was homosexual, some theories suggest that you were maore likely to marry whoever your parents wanted you to, and if you did have extramarital affairs, they wouldnt result in children There are a couple more but I have misplaced my athro notes :)
This response has been erased.
actaully, depends on the culture......the arwaks for instance had no set mates...the women raised each child they had, and switched partners whenever they wanted with no hard feelings whatsoever.
(6 was a goof, and I thought I'd aborted it... stupid grex!) At any rate, I don't see how those select homosexuality. Selection pressures don't care about marriage: the more children, the more genetic survival, regardless of whether those children are bastards.
That would assume that children from single parent families did as well at reproducing as their counterparts who grew up with two parents. I would assume it wouldn't make much of a difference, but it theoretically could.
Not necessarily, traditionally. Depending on the culture and social class, bastards might be raised as if the mother's husband were the father. (for purposes of hiding the shame) (or b/c the mother lied about the affair)
alot of cultures had a tradition of taking up children. if the father wasnt sure it was his or didnt claim the child it was abandoned. Actually <and i wish i could find my sources> 'bastards' didnt do as well as legetimate children, and children of single families didnt do as well either.
We are talking about 6000 years of recorded history, and millions more non-recorded... yes, there were cultures where bastards were abandoned and left to die. There were cultures (still are) where they are stigmatized and peripheralized. Then again, there are cultrures (still) where the punishment for homosexuality is death (or life imprisonment) -- there's at least one IRanian living in asylum in the U.S. b/c he would be imprisoned or killed if he returned home. Val, are you arguing that in some cultures there are no selection restrictions favoring heterosexuality (I would agree), or that in some cultures there are selection restrictions favoring homosexuality ( I would disagree)?
Both :) But mainly the former. All I can say is that I'm spouting theories <other peoples theories at that> and they can never really be proven true Even natural selection is still a theory :)
Well, "just a theory" would sum up most of our scientific knowledge, seeing as there are really veryfew Laws..
I think that humans should find pleasure in any way that they can. Heterosexuality may be viewed as the norm because, biologically, it is instinctive for animals to reproduce and continue the species. It may be true that I find more pleasure with men, but the idea of satiating myself with a women doesn't disgust me. I happen to very open-minded. Anyway, the bottom line is that "pleasure" is the cultural norm, therefore I feel that heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual relationships are all equally acceptable.
point i have to make:
The Arawaks of Hati had no marrage, and therefore no bastards.
Sarah, I concur with your view, mostly. Sex isn't about a
need to propogate the species anymore.. the world is overcrowded
already!
Greg, what you're saying, then, is that the study of how
well "bastard" or simgle-parent children do in life would be
pointless in the context of the Arawaks?
yes. quite. and that many tropicall cultures have the same set up.
Really? That i wasn't aware of. Can you name me some? Do they have a "everyone share the child" view, or what? How is the young one raised?
Also, greg, what are these cultures' views toward homosexuality, or bisexuality?
<blink> well, the arawaks we will never know, considering the spaniards committed genocie on the entire population of them..... some others.....well, MANy in the brazilian rain forest......
Right. THESE cultureS. Plural. How do they deal with it?
as far as i know, they do not....they just kinda let everyone do what they wanna do and take care of problems as they arrise.
Hmm.. any chance of looking up the info, or giving us te names of some of these tribes, so we can?
shure, i will try......lots of nationall geographics on it though.
This is from Valerie, the resident anthropologist: There are no societies that have no cocept of marriage, i.e., there is always some sort of regulation of reproductive activity and status of goods in regard to inheritance. There are some (in fact, many) societies in which the child is perceived of as being the mother's, i.e., specific paternity is irrelevant. In these cases, it is typically a direct male relative who takes the role of "father" (this relative usually being her brother, if she has one). Sexual practice and mate selection does vary widely across cultures. There is for instance a culture in India (or somewhere around there) where a woman can indicate sexual readiness by leaving a broom outside her house. Hence bastardhood would be irrelevant here -- the adults responible for the child are the mother and one of her brothers. The fathers *can* claim paternity if they desire, but they don't hate to. She's heard of the Arawaks, but doesn't remember the details there. They're apparently a fairly standard example, so a convenient source would be an anthropology textbook. Hope all this is elucidating. :)
hmmm, all i know is what they tell us in civ classes.
Thanks, Valerie/Brighn! I think that what was said, though, largely agrees with the bits of info from greg, just that the "no concept of marriage" detail is off.
I wasn't disagreeing with Greg, which is why his response is puzzling. I was offering some of the additional details you requested, Selena hon.
I understand, brighn.. I was trying to point that out to greg!
Is it actually true that the ancient Greeks considered Gay sex healthy, or is it something we just invented?
well,i know that the spartians used to have "messes" in whice men lived , slept, ate, everything together.......and yes, quite a few became lovers a wife could not be taken untill a certian age (that age escapes me at teh moment)......and even then, the man continued to live with the guys....
Actually, one view common among the Gay community right now is that the concept of *heterosexuality* is fairly new, like a few hundred years old. Not that heterosexuality itself is new, but rather the separation of it from all other sexualities (as opposed to the separation of sex from procreation which would necessarily be mixed-gender from sex for pleasure which could be either). I dunno. At any rate, no, we didn't invent the concept. Many cultures have male-male or female-female sex to varying degrees of social acceptability. Including the Greeks.
If I understand it right, the Spartans were encouraged to have lovers among the ranks..
of course they were, created even more feverent fanatic loyalty.
From what I understand too, in certain cultures semen had to be transferred from an older experienced man to a younger man. You weeren't born with what you needed to father children, you had to get it from someone else.
Transferred?
I am at the library but I swear I can't find anything on the arawaks...tell me what countray they are from and I will get you the information:)
originall inhabitents of hati.
Selena -- transferred through sex with an older man.
Facinating.. and not an illogical concept, if one isn't aware of how the biological systems involved function..
Wow, val.. that is interesting.. would that mean that they believe the man's sperm to be the only real factor in reproduction, or do they have a "transferral of eggs" between women, too?
I'm not sure about that. Maybe they beleive that women are just born with what they need to reproduce?
wow mind boggling
Maybe. What's your sources? I'd love to check on that one..
My sources are a little shaky, as in I really cannot remember where I read this. I will have to look into it. get back to you later?
Sounds good.
Val, i dont understand anthropology...........
This conversation seems to have gone astray. I believe we're talking about whether heterosexuality or homosexuality are the norm. I still think the scale that Kinsey proposed has validity. Not many people are absolutely he or homo, but there are many degrees in between. While it cannot be denied that heterosexuality is more common, and for obvious biological reasons, this does not make homosexuality "unnatural" any more than the fact that blonds are greatly outnumbered by brunettes in this world, but no-one would deem blonds "unnatural." I won't say another thing about blond(e)s.
It can't be denied that heterosexuality is more common? Hmmmm.... In practice, certainly. But the next phrase (for obvious biological reasons) suggests you're saying it cannot be denied that more people are physiologically heterosexual, and *that* can and *has* been denied, e.g., by my psych teacher nine years ago, who said that most humans are innately asexual and that for most people orientation is a learned behavior. The same can be said for handedness -- some researchers suggest that many people are right-handed just because that's the norm. So by linking the commonality of heterosexuality with biology, you're making a strong claim that is hardly undisputed. And what are the obvious biological reasons? Darwinist evolutionary theory (and derivatives)? Considering homosexuals and bisexuals have historically been compelled to act heterosexual to avoid social scrutiny, and as a defense at times had *more* children to "prove" their heterosexuality (that may have been one selectional force that Val was thinking of a while ago), Darwinist evolutionary theory wouldn't apply, *assuming* that orientation is primarily innate (and I don't think it is -- I think only 5-10% or so of people are born strongly enough predisposed to one orientation or the other to have it set). If orientation is not innate, it certainly can't be genetic -- there can be predispositions, genetically, I suppose. But the point is, the "obvious" biological reasons aren't so obvious.
Yeah, but for someone who believe Kinsey's figures, he was nicely tolerant.
Too much arguing. Let's just accept what we are, do what feels right for all parties involved, & have fun! ;}
I hope this is forgivable drift... Selena, are you just toying, or did you and Brighn really get married/handfasted? I'm a bit confused at your pseudo...
<nods> I am curious too...
Oh, sure, ask her but don't ask me... *brighn cuddles up to selena and sighs happily*
Alright...both of you then...what happened???
*sigh* No, Sarah, I'm ot going to tell you, you're just asking b/c I whined... *sigh* It's complicated, but the short version: we eloped in cyberspace. We're cybermarried... no formal ceremony or anything...
Well, the ceremony that preceded it was very spontaneous,
but precious in my heart nonetheless..
Yes, we are married, here, online. It was/is a very sacred and
loving thing for me, and I know, for him also.
Oh, and don't take his words too harshly- he was in a bad state
when he typed them.
Actually, I wrote them before the big crash, and it was a joke, but it's not as clear as I could have been... And yes, it was a lovely and special ceremony ... *brighn kisses selena*
Ah, well, then..
Brighn -- I wasn't asking you because I saw Selena's name first. If I had seen Brighn and Selena Kershaw in the opener, I would've asked you. First first, right? I'm sorry for any disappoiintment
No, I think he was just ribbing you.
Well, it's hard to tell. =) Anyways, congratulations you two!
Ribbing? *giggle* *kiss sarah* Yes, I was just playing with you, Sarah honey. Now, what was the topic, again? (wedding presents are unnecessary, just send cash... *giggle*)
<sends brighn and selena a check for one million cyber-dollars>
I have to say something...how come I didn't get a cybercake a cyberhoneymoon or any cyberpresents when we cyber did it?..*laugh* did you want a cyberdivorce now?.. or did it cybernot mean anything to you?...cyberwhaaaaaa..cybercry......cyberpout....
You're being cybersilly, linda. *hug*
This is getting cybersickening..
AAGGHH!!!! =)
awww I thought it was cyberfun..I cyberlaughed..even if I was cybersilly. everyone cyberlighten up...I was just teasing..:)
I'm going to cyberkill the next person who cybersays anything with cyber in it!!! ;)
Is it cold in here? This conversation is getting stale. *sigh* Brrr.... Sorry Sarah, couldn't resist.
<hugs brighn> S'okay...
<sigh>
<Selena cybersi-
Umm, actually, seeing as Sarah's drawing a knife, I don't think I'll do
that..
*brighn stands between selena and sarah and snarls, lest the knife be used*
Oh for crying out loud...you all know I'm a pacifist. =) Go ahead and have your cyberfun...
Hmmm, this was an interesting conversation can we get back to it? I believe that heterosexuality is simply the socially accepted 'norm'. I do think that humans are, deep down, attracted to beauty and whether that beauty is money, or looks or a person's soul...it differs. I am attracted to beauty in most forms, and if someone happens to be female, then so be it. I am not going to disregard them simply because they were born of the same sex as myself...
Morgayn, thats a good philosophy! However, some in the medical profession increasingly believe that homosexuality or the tendency to be homosexual may be genetic. Which means that it is perfectly natural and not a sickness or a disease. But is also implies that there is a scientific basis for one's sexual preference. There was a study a year or two ago, where some scientists claimed that by studying children's gene patterns and such, they could predict which were more likely to be homosexual. I think a lot of gay groups hope they do isolate a "homosexuality" gene because if it is proved to be natural, there should be less discrimination. But as I recall, the flaw in this study was pointed out in examples of identical twins, with no genetic differences, who grew up with different sexual orientations. I think most animals, including humans, are naturally bisexual and that "attraction" is never entirely a physical thing. On the other hand, as meticulously as our bodies have been designed, they would be flawed if they didnt have built-in senses to attract the opposite sex. It is sorta necessary for re-production purposes. But I still dont think that means heterosexuality is more natural than homosexuality or bi-sexuality, although most conservatives will tell you that. Morgayn, out of curiousity, at what age did you know you were bisexual? Did you like guys first or girls first? I think I heard somewhere that studies of bisexuals show that most think they are hetero first, but thats probably not conclusive.
That's fairly common sensical, that last bit is. Come on, in our culture, if you find yourself attracted to MOTSS and MOTOS (members of the same/ opposite sex, respectively), which are you more likely to freely accept and which are you more likely to suppress? I accepted my MOTOS attractions almost by default; my MOTSS attractions, on the other hand, took years before I accepted them (even though my first sexual experience was technically MOTSS, but I've talked about that elsewhere...). A common pattern is for a bi to label themselves first as het, then as gay (when MOTSS attractions can't be denied, and some members of the gay community as well as many members of the het grouping deny the existence of bisexuality, therefore, if you're attracted to MOTSS, you must be gay), and finally as bi. Unfortunately, another common pattern is for a gay person to lebel themselves first as het, then as bi (when the MOTSS attractions can't be denied, but they don't want to commit fully), then as gay... and many bis skip the "I'm gay" phase (like me), and many gays skip the "I'm bi" phase... wheeeeeee....... Are you confoozled yet? I was looking at the "Sex for Dummies" book at a bookstore today... mostly b/c I couldn't believe they had the audacity to take the PC/DOS/ Windows/Unix... for Dummies series and put a Sex book in there. The advice is from Dr. Ruth. At any rate, there was no listing for either polyamory or bisexuality in there, and homosexuality got about three pages. Speaking of Dummies! *sigh* Heterocentrist pablum. Specific orientations, cut and dried, couldn't be genetically predetermined, there's just too much variety in behavior and desire. Tendencies towards orientations, OTOH, can and I think are genetically predetermined. Weakly, though...
I find it a little strang how adamantly some gay rights advocates insist that homosexuality is genetic, rather than choice. I'm willing to assume that it's genetic, but I don't think that has any bearing on whether it's right or wrong. Since there are lots of other behaviors that just about everybody accepts as choice, and just about everybody accepts as ok, if homosexuality has to be genetic to be alright that would seem to indicate that if people had the choice then it is the wrong choice to make.
Um, Steve, that's exactly what the religious right has been saying all along... homosexuality is a choice, and therefore does not deserve *default* protection... many behaviors are socially all right, but many others are not (drug abuse, prostitution)...
prostitution is only illegall 'cause we have stupid laws.... anyone out there have oral or anel sex? c'mon put those hands up congratulations, you've just broken michigan law btw: in china prostitution is now a capitall crime.
re 82: The Religious Right has been saying that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore inherently bad. I'm saying that whether it is a choice or not has no bearing on whether it is bad or not. There are plenty of choices that society views as irrellevant and none of anybody elses business, and there are plenty of genetic things that we do view as causes for judging people. For example, if somebody were born without arms it might well be genetic, but I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anybody who objected to using the lack of arms as a reason not to hire this person to do heavy lifting. Yet if somebody were discriminated against because they dyed their hair a natural looking brown, rather than their natural blond, they would have made a choice, and yet people would consider the discrimination pointless, and probably objectionable. What is there about homosexuality, as aside from all other behaviors, that makes it perfectly alright if it's genetic, but an evil sin if it's a choice? I don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality. I do feel that it is genetic, based on research that I have seen. I find the argument from gay rights advocates that homosexuality has to be ok, because it's genetic to be a little obsurd. That argument implys that, were it not genetic, homosexuality would not be ok.
For you and I, scg, there's nothing wrong with someone choosing to be a homosexual. For those who would persecute them, there's a *big* difference. They're just targeting their audience with their message, that's all. >8)
There is a major gay-rights case before the supreme court (besides
the colorado one that is)
Here's the case:
A lesbian couple in massachusetts a few years ago went to a
sperm bank and one of them conceived a child using donor sperm, with
the idea that the two would be the parents. Same-sex marriages are
illegal in most states, so they had a personal ceremony and exchanged
rings but were not legally married. Because they were not married,
the other woman could not legally adopt the child.
Anyway, they moved to Wisconsin and lived as a family for nine years.
Then last year, they broke up. The biological mother is now
heterosexual and seeing a man. She now believes the other woman, who
has acted as the child's other parent since birth, would be a bad
influence and has refused her visitation rights. The state of
Wisconsin, while acknowleding that the child himself said he regarded
this other woman as one of his parents, said that since the woman
could not and did not legally adopt the child she cannot claim
visitation rights. This woman financially supported and raised this
child since birth, and yet the law says she has no parental rights
because she was not allowed to marry the biological mother or adopt
the child.
If past precedents hold, the Supreme court will not change the Wisconsin
court's ruling and I think this is a shame. Homosexual couples should
have the same rights as heterosexual couples, and it is a shame that a
little kid gets caught in this bureacratic mess. Conservatives always
claim that a kid raised by a same-sex couple is more likely to be gay,
but I dont buy this either.
I think states ought to start giving marriage licenses to homosexual
couples, but that is difficult when same sex "sex" is considered an
inherently felonious act under most state laws.
Marriage isnt supposed to be about sex anyway. Its supposed to be
about committment I thought.
It's not the only behavior so classed, Steve. Alcoholism is also treated that way, for instance. If alcoholism is genetic, then it isn't o.k. to discriminate; if it's a choice, then it is. Who in Hell would choose to be alcoholic, though, and who in Hell would choose to be homosexual in this culture? The choice vs. gene debate assume that nurture = choice, which it doesn't. For the record, Steve, I agree with you fully. Sin or no sin, our country is founded on freedom of behavior as long as that behavior doesn't limit or infringe upon others (all right, so that's the Rede rewritten, the founding fathers were mostly deists, related distantly to paganism...). The problem is, though, Steve, you're talking sensically. That doesn't work with the audience you'd be trying to convince. You know, the ones who think this was founded as a Christian nation because of "under God" in the Pledge and "America the Beautiful... God shed hHis light on thee", neither of which appeared until the 19th Century. The ones who think Freedom of Religion means Christians have the right to impose their values on others (hey, missionizing is part of Christianity, right, so if they can't missionize, their religious rights are being infringed upon). You don't need to convince the relgious folk (Christian and non-Christian alike) who have a sensical view of the universe. *They* already agree with Gay Rights, etc. (at least, most of them do).
Hmmm, this is all very nice and well, I honestly do not believe that my sexual orientation has anything to do with genetics. I believe it has to do with the fact that I admire beauty and that I love, regardless of gender. If it is indeed genetic, is it then inherited? For if so, I can disprove this silly rumor right now... As for when I thought and found out my sexual orientation....Kerouac, it is something I found out and accepted through many years of growth which finally culminated into two same sex relationships in the past two months. I found myelf able to love the same gender as much as I love men, and I realized that it was unfair of myself to deny this. Make sense? There is no magic story to go with it, simply a coming of age, and lots of growing up.
Being gay, I know (I can feel it) that being gay is something you are born with just like heterosexuality.
And being bisexual isn't? Actually, I'm of the feeling that there might be predispositions, but it does depend a lot on the person's views..
I patently disagree that homosexual couples should have the same rights as *married* heterosexual spouses. Therefore I agree with the law as discussed in the prior entries.
*Why* do you disagree, though? Give me (us) some valid, non-religious reasons...
yup yup... marrage is just a tax break...why should they not have it?
What the courts havesaid is that homosexuality implies the performance of "inherently felonious" acts (sodomy andanalsex are illegal in most places ya know), so that legalizing gaymarriages would also be legalizing these currently illegal acts. Essentialy its like saying, you cant legalize drug dealing until you legalize the drugs themselves. Its a catch 22 situation. Hopefully we willeventually realize how stupid this all is and let gayc ouples get married.
Well, there shouldn't be a seperate legal category for anal sex- it's sex, and males and females can enjoy it as much as males and males..
ALmost all heterosexual couples in the State of Michigan have committed illegal sex acts (I thought felonies were national crimes... *shrug*). That's a bad argument. There's nothing in the marriage laws that say couples *must* have sex.
nope...felonies are just crimes that are (in all but one case) punisiable by OVER 1 err, OVER 1 year in jail and 10, or is it 1, whatever 10,000 dollors....
Ah. O.k. *shrug* Shows my legal expertise. :) At any rate, my point still holds. I've heard that argument, but that implies the purpose of marriage is sex. That's the traditional societal reason for it, but that argument in 1995 (that gay marriage is illegal b/c it implies condoning illegal sex acts) implies that marriage is a legalized form of sex... I don't like that implication at all. The other possible argument (non-religious) that I've heard is that the purpose of marriage is procreation. But that would imply there should be a law dissolving marriages if there are no offspring within such-and-such time. Such a law I would likewise disagree with. In short, I don't see any valid (non-religious) reasons for keeping same-sex marriages (implicitly if not explicitly) illegal.
First I would Like to say there is a difference between NORMAL and Natural. Normal is a term of statistics. So I would saay homosexuality is abnormal -- more often , people have heterosexual attractions and sexual acts. But, You may also wonder if having a homosexual experience is normal or not? Natural has to do with what has influanced you to do something. I think that the abnormal act of loving MOTSS, or having sex with MOTSS is completly natural. For some there may be a genetic reason for this to be more natural for them. However, I don't think that homosexuality is genitic for all gay people. That would almost certainly make bisexuality unnatural -- if you are born either straight OR gay. So it must be a combination of Genetics and choice. Perhapse the genetics are not the same in every case -- is someone who is considered queer more likely to have to choose to accept the lable or rebel aginst it? OK, now for the subject of marriage: For years I was aginst gay marriages -- Probably because I didn't see that much of a need, but today the concept of marriage hits many areas: 1) Health Insurance & Employment Benifits 2) The RIGHT to have your choice of sexual partners 3) Reducing your risk of STD's 4) Setting up a comunity property relationship 5) The legal right to keep your children in some states ... Since the marriage is regulated by the state, It would seem unreasonable that somthing with the leagle equivilant of marriage would not be recognized for any couple. Now is the time to decide if the values of our past are best serving the society today. By now, I mean each and every day we should evaluate where we are. Many of the provisions of marriage can be set into a contract, but all the rights and privilages of marriage can not be placed into any contract between two people.
I think that homosexual couples should have the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. I feel that marriage is based on *love* and the desire to be with a person for the rest of your life. Obviously, biological children are not an option, but adoption is. Here is another issue that bothers me: Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed to have children? They are two loving, willing people interested in caring for and loving a child as much as any heterosexual couple. Just because two people are of the same sex and in love with each other doesn't make them less human...it makes them just like everybody else. The only difference, and I mean the *only* difference is that they are of the same sex. As for religious reasons, the world law is NOT mandated by the Bible. It is not Law, but that discussion has no place here. Love is a beautiful thing, and if I see two people completely happy with each other and in love with each other, I see it as that, whether they be a man and woman, a woman and another woman, or a man with another man. If they have a child with them, I think that's equally wonderful. It means that a child is being raised in a loving, caring home. People who think that their morals are the law of the land *REALLY* piss me off. Why should I live by Joe Shmoe's morals and ethics? Sometimes I feel like telling the whole world to get a life. <set seething mode = off>
One question. Why does loving someone have to end in lovemakin it seems to me love and desire are two different expressions. love and desire can be towards someone with out the other..and love and desire can be partners in lyour feelings for someone.
<sigh>
Loving someone *doesn't* have to end in lovemaking. I love a lot of my friends, but have never slept with them. :-)
Greg, what was the point of the sigh? Honestly, sometimes... What about polygamy, though, Sarah? What are your views on the legalization ofthat?
I want to interject and remind you that marriages that have not been sexually consummated are subject to the option of annulment.. Meaning that, yes, sex is implied, legally, in the institution of marriage. Not that it should be, but it is..
Polygamy? I'm all for it as long as partners consent to it. Love is a wonderful thing, and if you can experience it with more than one person, then more power to you! I know a few people that are happy in polyamorous relationships. Also, children could benefit from having more than two parents. Why is it illegal anyway? I've always known that it's against the law, but what is the reasoning behind it?
Re: #92: Your statement implies that religious reasons would not be valid. What arrogance! Just because this country is not officially a religious state does not mean that people that make its laws etc. turn off their religious brains when doing so. Certainly the US prides itself on not permitting religious tyranny by any particular group. But this country would founded on principles embodied in many/most world religions, most especially Christianity. And central to those principles is the sanctity of the family. And a family is husband and wife, and usually kids. A family is *not* 2 adults of any particular persuasion who happen to decide to cohabitate, with or without practicing sex. That is why unmarried *heterosexual* couples do not have the same rights as married couples.
You are accusing me of arrogance in the same breath that you are accusing Franklin and Jefferson of that self-same arrogance. Read the First Amendment. Laws with religious foundation in ethics that are based on somewhat universal views throughout religions are certainly valid, but those can be expressed without reference to a specific religion. If you can express such views, then I would accept those as valid. I was referring to arguments that point me to Romans 1 and say gays hsouldn't get married because St. Paul said so. The sanctity of the family is therefore a valid point. My response would be that while the concept of family is fairly universal, its structture hardly is. Many, many cultures have some level of polygamy, and yet polygamy is illegal in this country. Therefore your argument needs to be tweaked. And I repeat the point that marriage is typically for the purpose of determining and maintaining patriarchal lineage, and therefore childless couples should not (by your argument) have as many rights as those with children.
Again, one also must start to wonder who's definition of "family"
we are using? In the British Isles, where Christianity had gained a pretty
solid foothold, the standard "family" unit is *legendarily* what you would
call "abnormal". Many times, you'll find the Grandparents living with the
parents, living with the aunts/uncles, etc, in one residence. On the other
hand, unwed mothers as heads of households have gained much acceptance
there, in the past century, and that puts yet another chink in the "normal
family unit" theory.
It's pointless to even judge a family by blood relations, because
of adoption.. aren't these families just as sacred as those who bore their
own children?
So, before you go and point to any arrangement as being against
the proper family arrangement, maybe you should think about what that is.
It's about love.
I have a question for you:
I was born to two good Catholic parents, who spent the majority of
their time reading out of the bible, going to church, and trying to make a
good little girl out of me. Now, when my father felt that it was pointless
trying to control me any further, he disowned me.
Would this couple qualify under your strict rules of marriage and
such as a "proper couple"?
If your dad truly disowned you, and proceeded as if he had no daughter (any longer), then I find that outcome sad. But that has nothing to do with the definition of a family. A family starts with husband and wife. That is a necessary and sufficient condition. Usually there will be children as well, either offspring or adopted. Even if the couple does not have children, that does not invalidate the sanctity of their marriage, from which the sanctity of the family flows. Arguments that married couples without children are invalid families are just attempts to show that other "unordained" multiple-person relationships are just as sanctified as the traditional family. I happen to disagree. Yes, there are all sorts of things such as extended families, single-parent families due to choice, or other spouse abandonment or death, divorce, etc. But the family unit of "choice" in a "perfect" society remains daddy & mommy & kiddies. Some of you may not like this, and wish to liberalize the definition, but many/most of us are quite happy & satisfied to see the traditional family remained santified. And this is reflected by the court decision.
Hm. You clearly don't understand the phrase "necessary and sufficient condition", since you say "A family starts with husband and wife" and proceed to list families that do not have husband and wife, including unwed mother situations (where there never *was* a husband and ergo no wife). So having a husband is clearly NOT a necessary condition for having a family... The family unit of choice in mainstream American society does consist of a male adult, a female adult, and 2 children. At any rate, this is the prototypical family according to traditional American views. But expanding the definition of "family" does not necessarily change the prototype... that's absurd. And marriage does not involve a male adult, a female adult, and 2 children, so the act of marriage is *not* the act of family formation. It may be one step, but (a) families can be formed without this step (a couple living together with a boy and a girl as children is a lot closer to the prototype than a married couple without children) and (b) this step is not sufficient to forming the prototype. In short, it is misleading to link marriage with family formation. The point of the law is first and foremost to deal with legal advantages and disadvantages, and then to deal with the ethics and values of the society. The argument is often (almost always) used that we cannot permit children to grow up in non-prototypical households. However, that is circular... the prototype won't change until the prototype changes, and the prototype can't change until it changes. The illegality of polygamy in this country clearly violates my First Amendment rights, as it violates the tenets of my religion. "Greater good" arguments must be invoked, but how does it affect society in general? Likewise, MOTSS marriage illegality violates my First Amendment rights for the same reason. What mayhem will occur if I'm allowed to marry another man? The Supreme Courts recently decided the *ONLY* reason for violating religious rights is the greater good of the society. Religion has, to my knowledge, never been an issue in this perspective in these suits (at least, not recently... back when the Protestants tromped on the Mormon right to polygyny last century, it was brought up a lot... but that was when the Mormons were the Enemies of the State, much like the Branch Davidians are today...). I wonder what the outcome would be? I accept that your views are well-reason, Kevin, but I still don't agree. Interesting that you use the word "sanctity", a clearly religious term. So... what mayhem will ensue if guys marry guys and gals marry gals? I'm wondering why you're so opposed to the idea.
Thats the same reasoning bozo conservatives like dan quayle have used in the past to say that one parent families arent as much families as two parent families. That somehow if the family isnt nuclear, meaning two-parent mom and dad together, it isnt a "family" in the biblical sense. My folks divorced when I was young, and I was for a time in a one-parent family and we werent any LESS of a family because we had a single parent. It is the same thing with this notion of gay partners marriage not being as valid as hetero marriage. Who sets the standards? who decides what people form the most nurturing families. I know some gay couples who would (and in some cases DO make terrific parents). I know some single parents who with their kids make better families than many traditional families. This whole thing about applying standards to what defines a "family" arbitrarily. I have always found people who use the bible in this way to be cruel. I knew a girl in high school who, along with her brother, were adopted. One time this conservative minister was preaching on the street near our school. We talked to him and my friend mentioned she was adopted, and he said adoptive families dont count and that if you really believed the bible, she and her brother were not part of a family. My friend cried the whole way home. I never want to be paryrt of a religion that encourages people to look down on others and be so arbitrarily judgemental. My definition of a family has nothing to do with whether it is single parent, gay parents, or adoptive parents. It has to do with burturing ...er...nurturing and bonds and the sharing of lifetimes. There is so much more involved than simple categories.
The "conservative minister preaching on the street" was spewing forth idiotic assertions if he said that. My only comment is that religions can not be judged based on the behavior of one individual.
Hmmmm... why are his idiotic assertions and yours not? I'm confused now. No, I'm not saying your assertions are idiotic, but you certainly support the "judgmental" comment. You haven't heard any of that preacher's reasonings for his conclusions, and yet your willing to judge him as an idiot. My, my, Kevin, do watch the debate puddles you fall into. Any rate, you haven't responding to anything I've said. Since I raised some new points, I can only conclude that you don't have any clear response to it (or simply don't deem it worthy... *shrug*).
Well its been a long time but this minister I believe was saying wha er...what many orthodox christians (particularly the ultra conservative scottish free presybterians) tend to say. Specifically that the bible says that the "family" relationship is second only to one's relationship with God, and that ONLY blood relationships are natural and thus only those relationships are the will of God. This minister, I remember, told my friend that God decided who her parents were when He created her, and that her being given up for adoption was an act of the devil and contrary to the word of God. What I should have asked him, but didnt, is wasnt Joseph like Jesus's adoptive father? Anyway Im sure most like that minister would use the same argument to say that homosexuals shouldnt marry or adopt or concieve children in any nontraditional way. They'd say such is against the will of God. Which is all the more reason why Im an athiest personally.
To answer- yes, my father has not been a part of my life for
ten years now, and neither has my mother. The point is, these would be, by
your arbitrary definitions, the "best" people to raise me- my ideal family.
The truth, though is quite the opposite- I've had far less of
crushing restrictions on who I am, and much more freedom to discover
who I can be, and who i need to be. All this, without the ideal family
that you advocate. You can't just go and state what is and isn't ideal
without thinking of the consequences of these ideals, in real
life.. well, you can, but you'll come off looking terribly
ignorant.
ideals very seldom, if ever work the simple fact is that the world is not ideal, therefore ideals don't work in a non-ideal world
Yeah, right, the world stinks, so anything I do doesn't matter, etc. A very nice self-fulfilling prophesy. As far as the minister and his ministrations, I did *not* say that *he* was an idiot, I characterized his assertions as idiotic. Whatever biblical text he was using to show that adoption was "devilish" misses the entire point: the human relationship with God is at a personal level, *not* the family level. The purpose of the family is to establish an environment where God's teachings can be taught to the children and reinforced in practice by the family members. If adopted children come into a family, that doesn't change the purpose of the family, nor the fact that the adopted children are the ones who have a personal relationship with God. And, brighn, spare me the running commentary on my style (or lack thereof) of conferencing. I have expressed my opinions on the *topic*, *not* on how other conferencers have chosen to participate.
i was not actuallly saying that nothing you do doesn't matter i was just saying that the world was less than perfect
It looks like sexuality continues to be a forum for expresions about christian religions..and just like I said before..what a shame that so many who represent God represent HIm so wrong. re: 118 I agree with what your are saying. The Bible states that when we we accept Christ as our savior we become adopted into the family of God and become joint heirs with Christ. got to wonder what bible that minister reads huh?
So if two homosexuals raise a child according to thier moral code, then it's a family, right? That's what you said, Kevin. Please clarify for me. Once, definitively, what is the purpose/are the purposes of a family? What is the purpose of marriage? What I understand you to be saying: 1. The purpose of marriage is to form the foundation of a family. 2. The purpose of a family is to create an environment in which children can be taught the values of society and religion. I disagree with two: I believe the purpose of a family to provide an environment of mutual support for all involved. I agree, though, and am certainly willing to grant that families can have multiple purposes. That notwithstanding, though, if I grant what you're saying, and I understand it, then you're using religion without using religion. No go. You snuck it back to Christianity, Kevin. If two gays are not allowed to adopt a child, on teh grounds that their lifestyle is not acceptable, then... what? People who adulter lose custody? People who are disrespectful to others lose their children? IF two MOTSS, or three people sharing domicile and sexuality, or whatever else, are capable of providing a loving, caring, and *in their view and in a view acceptable to society according to the constitution* ethical and moralistic environment, they should be allowed to adopt or (if possible) bring their own children into the world. IF some group of adults can provide such an environment, then I see no reason why the can't get married. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? And I'll retract my comment w/r/t the fundie minister. The guy was being idiotic, and I was using cheap debate tactics to undermine you. Your argument is weak enough I shouldn't have to rely on cheap tactics, so I retract it.
Couldn't resist making one more comment on my conferencing abilities, eh Brighn? (even while ostensibly retracting an earlier comment; sigh) Yes, it certainly boils down to what is an acceptable and therefore legally protected form of marriage. And this country, for religious or other reasons, still maintains that said protection is only reserved for man & woman as husband & wife. The courts concur. A lesbian woman can give birth to her own child, as procreation is an implied "basic" right of (female) citizens. But homosexuals, singly or in groups, or unmarried heteros etc. are not likely to be able to adopt. That's another manifestation of what society considers to be an acceptable family environment.
Um, more and more, the courts are disagreeing with that, Kevin. In arecent case, a Lesbian woman and her partner were granted full custody of her biological daughter (the product, I believe, of a previous marriage), making her partner a legal parent of the child. Your cycle is the essence of conservatism: Laws are based on what is acceptable socially., What is acceptable socially is determined in part by law. Change is hence impossible... but change is happening all the time. And sighing is a form of commenting on my debate style. Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black, Kevin dear. :) At any rate, we have the basic problem of constitutional democracy. Laws are tested against a set of predetermined prescribed policies of ethics and fairness called the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. Laws are written by a bunch of people who are compelledby a desire to maintain their jobs (and, in fact, by a desire to *do* their jobs) to create laws based on public opinion. Only the Supreme Court Justices are immune from public opinion (barring a bullet in their back), and that immunity occurs only *after* they've gotten tehir positions. Lower courts are compelled to support public opinion even when it goes against the fundamental principles of this nation. I suppose we've beaten this topic to death, though. :) You have a valid viewpoint, Kevin, I just happen to disagree with it. At this point, it's purely academic for me, although I've a feeling it might not be in a few years...
Well said!
hey rosie o'donnell adopted and she's both single and lesbian. I guess when you have money though you can get anything you want. Most people have to wait years to adopt, she waited a couple of weeks.
money makes the world go 'round
Natural? Heh. Homosexuality, in a anthropological context, isn't a
positive adaption to an environment and therefore is selected strongly
against, unless a homosexual individual still breeds hetereosexually. But
who honestly strives to be natural these days? McDonalds and television is
exceedingly unnatural.
"selected strongly against"? No, something which is selected strongly against is actually detrimental to the creature's survival *and* reproduction. IT is detrimental to reproduction, but not to survival (baseball bats in dark alleyways notwithstanding). Is there a way to breed other than heterosexually? (turkey basters and parthenogenesis, I suppose)
A characteristic doesn't have to be detrimental to a creature's
survival to be naturally selected against. A total non-interest in sex, for
instance, is a good example ... in several species, males spend a good deal
of energy acquiring a mate or mates and breeding ... so it might actually be
advantageous in terms of a creature's survival. Humans are an excellent
example of a species that could benefit strongly in terms of survival and
prospering from not being concerned with sex or mate-seeking at all. But
since such a individual does not breed, the genetic material with the genes
for non-sexuality will not be inherited, i.e., it is strongly selected against
in nature. Entire human subcultures have been wiped out for overly moralistic
attidues toward sex - viz the Shakers.
As a little nitpick, characteristics that affect an individual member
of a species after it's potential breeding age aren't selected for at all ...
take a member of species A, a, and another member of species A, b ... if
member a drops dead immediately after ending their useful breeding life, and
member b does not, their genetic contributions, all other factors
nonwithstanding, will be the same. In fact a's probably going to do a little
better if it is only built to last so long; it'll grow up more quickly or use
less energy on a daily basis because it is not built to last.
Not true. You're whittling it all down to sex. The two important aspects are survival of the generation and propogation of the next, and you're forgetting completely about the first. Let's say that the black widow spider was highly preyed upon. It is well known that the black widow is called that b/c the female kills the male upon mating. *But* if the male were needed during pregnancy or the early stages of the offspring's life to protect the female from predators, then clearly the behavior of killing the mate would be detrimental. So the female gets knocked up? That doesn't do a damn bit of good if she's killed while she's pregnant. I'm not objecting to the "selected against", I'm objecting to the "strongly" If homosexuals had the role of protecting the rest of the species from attack, for instance (and there is some suggestion that, in modern America, they do... estimates of the ratio of gays-to-hets in the military are typically significant;y *higher* than the ratio of gays-to-hets in non-military, especially among females; Lesbians have to drop out from pregnancy a lot less often), then there would be some selection in favor of *some* level of homosexuality.
However, even if the contribution of any group Y in larger group X is
significant, and allows group X to prosper, if group Y does not breed, the
genes that differentiate group Y from group X do not get passed on, period.
It is true that a group X with a high prediliction towards having Y offspring
might do better than group Z, otherwise identical to group X but without the
possibility of Y offspring, via kin selection, and this is one of the major
reasons tool-use, communication, and social bonds are so strongly selected
for in hominids, but there is no evidence of a contribution of this nature
in natural history and scanty evidence at best in human history - clearly
there is no evidence that ancient man prospered because of a high homsexual
population.
Interestingly enough, bisexuality makes quite a bit of sense under
certain conditions (it'd be difficult to elaborate all of these in this space
without boring someone to death, and even more difficult to get it right the
first time).
Just a little aside- black widows do not kill mates in nature. Under scientific observation, where they were ususally starving, yes they will. If they are well fed, then nope, they dissapear off to throw themselves at other females. Also, altruism is selected for, under certain situations. If there is a completely altruistic group it will out compete a selfish group, but if there are any selfish individuals in a group, it will undermine the group until all the individuals are selfish.
Footnote: Val is spider goddess.
All hail arachne! :) This entire convo has pretty much assumed that hoosexuality is genetic, which I don't think it is (or genetics is only a minor contibuting factor), so it's been mostly academic anyhow. And now my head hurts... thanks Jazz.
Spider-bite, brighn? ;}
Homosexuality can be genetic, I believe, but that is also just
one possible cause. For instance, what if Jane loves sensual pleasure
so much she doesn't truly care where it comes from? Her genetics
could all be predisposed toward homosexuality, but her learned
responses aren't tuned away from anyone, regardless of gender.
Hahahahahah.
No problem.
Yup, it is all academic ... though there are a few real factors, such
as a genetic non-predisposition towards homosexuality and in favour of bi-
or hetero- sexuality, to ensure genetic survival, if one buys the Selfish
Gene theory.
Selena, I've never heard that sort of argument before, for the root
of one person's bisexuality being from pure hedonism. I'm not sure if that
would be technically bisexuality, since characteristics of that hedonism are
oftentimes found in Kinsey 0's and 6's, as well. But then that rests on a
definition of bisexuality as being of attraction and of a capacity for sexual
relationships with both sexes, not as a choice of partners - something I stick
with since it's entirely possible to be, for instance, gay, and only have
heterosexual sex because of societal prejudice.
Wel, what do you think of that argument?
It kinda troubles me, selena. I'm not sure why. It's probably because
I define hetero-, bi-, and homo- sexuality based on the ability to love and
be in a relationship with a certain gender, mostly because such a definition
fits most of the experiences I've had and those that other people have told
me about. It allows for a man, for instance, to find out in his forties that
he only has satisfaction from relationships with men, in a way that he does
not with women, yet - all his life he's had, and enjoyed, heterosexual sex,
even though he's found out that that's not what he wants out of life.
That abstractly considered, we're all multi-sexual, since we can, if
we let ourselves, be pleasured by men, women, androgynes, machines, and
even animals. There's no denying that if we center only on pleasure any or
all of those can be pleasurable. Yet ... I like to look for more out of a
partner - at least *wanting* to be pleasured by a partner, and to pleasure
them back. Which rules out animals and machines. And then being able to bond
with, trust, and respect a partner, which rules out most of the rest of
humanity. :)
Hrm. I *have* known people who can*not* get sexual pleasure from either gender... men who have experimented with gay sex, for instance, and the thought of even *receiving* head from a guy is negative... One of the men I've been withintimately is het, but he didn't mind me going down on him... using similar reasoning as Jazz'. Other men have been apologetic at my (half-joking, mostly) flirtations, and said they just can't. So I *don't* think it's true that anyone can get pleasure from anywhere if they just focus hard enough. The thing to look at, as far as the (mutated) Kinsey scale goes, is that there is no well-defined "bisexuality". Bisexuals are in the middle somewhere. The man in question, for instance, would most likely be around a 1... men are interesting, but he just doesn't get excited enough by them to go for it... I'm close to a 3. But except for the clear cases (0 = het, 3 = bi, 6 = gay), it's hard to say where each person falls. That's why there can't be a single gay gene, since its presence or absence would indicate het or gay, and that just ins't so. A combination of genes, possibly, that cause predisposition which, when combined with experential phenomena create a certain scenario. That's more than possible. That's my view, in fact. :)
I've seen some strong evidence to the point that sexual predisposition
is a learned rather than an inheritable trait ... or that at the very least
it is possible to override any genetic predisposition. Aside from the rather
abhorrent examples of "homosexaul conversion" that we have from decades past,
which do seem, from limited information, to have genuinely reshaped
individuals' sexual personas, we have documented cases, including, most
notably, Patty Hearst, of how conditioning can radically alter a person's
sexual persona.
Patty Hearst's sexual persona was radically altered? HOw so?
Well ypu're talking about *sex*, jazz, so pleasure is the goal, yes? If we were talking about *lovemaking*, that would be different- one is for fun, the other for serious expression of love.
It works out to more or less the same things, though.
he has point
I would argue that intent is everything. Sex can even be used as a manipulative tool, to those who are so cold-blooded.
Paty Hearst was kidnapped and held in a closet..she began to do anything her captors wanted of her and when she was freed she was changed..in every way not just sexually but that was part of it..She did what ever she could to just survive..she wwas so conditioned.
Sex and making love are hardly the same thing.
i would admit i have met a person that got what they wanted thorugh sex.
I've met several women m'self. :)
What if what they wanted *was* sex? *wink* At any rate, sex for power is an unfortunate occurence, but it does happen...
i don't think she wanted sex money 'n gifts yes, not sex
Anyway, my point is, that Sex can be used for its own worth, or for recreation, or for virtually anything else.. Lovemaking, on the other hand, is different, and has but one true purpose.. woe to the poor person who makes love to someone who is just "having sex."
There's nothing wrong with sex for sex's sake, as long as everyone is
intelligent about it and uses proper protection and gets tested regularly.
But then again, everyone who's sexually active, even in a committed monogamous
lesbian relationship (the lowest AIDS risk group) should be doing that.
I'm not saying that there aren'tpeople who practice sex for sex's sake,
or that you or anyone else here who states that they do so does not - for I
don't know anyone nearly well enough to make that kind of judgement - but I've
run into a lot of people who claim to practice sex for purely hedonistic
reasons who really don't - and if you're sexually active amongst people who
claim to do so (presumably) I'm sure you've run into this as well. Even when
I'm single I generally don't get involved in relationships of that type
because of the number of people who claim they want "no strings attatched"
and are really just deluding themselves or trying to delude me.
I agree with Selena. Are you saying you've run into hypocrite, or into liars, or into self-deluders? John, I think you made an a pretty strong blanket statement that "sex" ad "lovemaking" are de facto synonymous, and Selena and I (among others) seem to be responding to the allegation of virtual synonymy. The focal point, I think, is that either your statement was too broad or our interpretation of it is. At any rate, what exactly disqualifies the people in question froom their self-label of sex hedonists? I'm not a complete hedonist myself... having sex with someone that I haven't known for at least a few weeks bothers me, although I have had one one-night-stand (actually, given the nature of the one-night-stand, it might be that casual stranger sex bothers me BECAUSE of said experience *shiver*). But I have had sex for the sake of sex and pleasure, I've done it with close friends (for that matter, I've done it with my wives... I love them both dearly, and most of the experiences have been making love, but there've been the occasional rolls in the hay, and I think relationships need occsions of sex-for-sex'-sake, but I dunno... I know *my* two relationships need it now and then *laugh*). But love and sex are complicated entangled in our culture. I have a close female friend with whom I have little actual sexual attraction. It simply isn't the nature of the relationship. She and I talked about that on several occasions, since we're both programmed to respond to MOTOS as potential sex partners. We decided we had a wonderfully rare relationship. Then we had sex. It was purely recreational, it did nothing for our deeper souls, we never did it again, and our relationship is pretty much the same as it was before. *shrug* And this was a year ago...
I'm not saying that they are the same thing ... yeesh, that'd be a
pretty foolish thing. I'm saying that the actions are virtually identical
and to an outside observer (or even a party present) one can easily be
confused for the other..
Thank you for clarifying... ..
woe to those that make that mistake indeed
Thank you, greg..
And, thank you, Jazz.. I was responding because I thought you were
saying what brighn had assumed, too.
<sigh> now, if only i'd heard that advice about exactly 1 year ago
That's alright.. live and learn..
Hey, people are revisionists anyways. I've seen plenty of people
trying to say one of their past relationships wasn't love - especially when
others around them seem to think their former partner is less than they
deserve or is repulsive in some way - when it was definitely so when they were
involved in it.
love or limerance?
Jazz- I'll give you that one. Makes you wonder just how much of history is accurate, eh?
"History is written by the winners, baby ..."
I've seen some people who're really good reality spin-doctors ... they
can backstab someone and then wind up as their friend months later. I'm
really curious as to how they do it, not for the same reasons that they do
it, but to see what it is that people respond to, value, as friends.
Well, if Knowledge is power, I'd rather not know that one.. that kind of power sounds like the type that corrupts.. tempts you to use it, even if it'd be contradictary to the kind of person you want to be..
According to Tamara *I forget her last name* of the Temple of Bastet, most of the myths we have that are allegedly Egyptian are Greek constructs or modifications... so much so that she talks of two sets of myths, the aboriginal ones and the GraecoEgyptian (my term) ones. And I've wondered about the overbearing belligerence of the Teutonic and related myths, vs. the relative passivity and pacificness of the Celtic myths, when the Roman got along with the Celts fairly well and generally disliked the Germanic tribes... And so on... Then again, there are a few examples of tribe names that when translated mean "cannibals" or "shitheads" or somesuch, when such tribes were named by missionaries who asked neighboring tribes, "So what do you call the people who live on the other side of this mountain?" And so on...
I think a better phrasing of that truism would be, "power corrupts,
from the point of vantage of the powerless". When we are powerless we tend
to glorify our powerlessness as some sort of holy or uncorrupted state - when
we are poor we think ourselves more idealistic than the rich, when we are
politically powerless we feel ourselves to be less influenced by big business'
interests and more humane in our views. But I don't think it's simple
corruption that makes an entrenched homeowner with tenure more conservative
than an apartment renter with a day-to-day job; it's pragmatism.
Brighn, you've a fascinating comment, but I'm lost as to where it came
from ...
a bizarr tangent on "History is written by the winners" John
No, jazz. The kind of power we were discussing I *clearly* defined
as being a corrupting power.
I said nothing about all power, now did I?
Reading a good book on that one right now, _The True Believe_ by Eric
Hoffer. Inasmuch, it's about the mass movement, religious, political, or
otherwise (or a combination thereof) and how it affects the human psyche, how
it works, and why it succeeds. But to a degree, it offers some interesting
insights into the values and views of the powerful and powerless.
Those views being..? (Don't leave us in suspense, John!)
Well, sheez, I haven't finished it yet! :)
Some of the interesting theses: popular movements, political or
religious, tend to fill the role of soemthing larger-than-the-individual,
which appeals much more strongly to those who are frustrated with life - this
being, another thesis states, more those who lack only a few things rather
than those for whom life is a daily struggle.
The implications for the middle class are kinda interesting.
Okay.. interesting.. get back to us when you're finshed, please!
Ok I just started into this conf so I haven't got a chance to read all the arguments. I will go back one day and do so, but for now I['m just stating my opinion. I am bi and I do believe that everyone has a little bi in them from the start. Not saying that all people are bi because that would be saying that everyone is bi and that is not true. I enjoy both sex. And when I'm with one or the other I am commited to that person at that time. I don't tell many people that I am bi because I am a private person, but if someone would to ask me I would tell them yes I was bi. It is all socitey. This is a Chritain basied socitey whether we like it or not. That is why gay marriages are band, and sertain sex acts are band. How can you tell soemone what or what not to do when they are having sex? Are they going to come into my room and bust me? I am proud of who I am and I don't think I am confused. Some people do think that if you are bi you are confused. Untill we come out of the dark ages we can never understand human nature and learn to accept it.
I think the dark ages have pretty much ended, ya know? We forget how much more stupid things once were. Anyway...if anyone tried to enforce 90% of the sex laws a bunch of rich white Christian congressmen and their blonde (stereotype) secretarieswould be in some deep trouble.
yes I agree. lot of the dark ages are gone but a lot of them are still out there and they control the laws, and the money in this country. They dick around with everyone else and they do what they damn please and then they enforce (Well try to) there laws upon us. Telling us that we can't think for ourselves because we are the lost generation and we need people like them to tell us what to do. You know it's shit and I know it's shit. We have come of age yes that I agree and we do learn from the past and how stupid things were but they are still out there and they are in power. Think about.
mmm...sex acts with a whole band...fun;) BRassholes may be assholes but you know...
re 177 - I don't pin it as us against them. I pin it as differing opinions and lack of education in the realm of tolerance.
Lexi, just go screw Tim and be done with it. *grin*
erinn, you know its not that simple
Ok Responce from a "rich white christian" Not all of us are bad....while my beleifs don't condown same sex relationships...I(me) don't condem it. Poeple are poeple and do what they want to do. I like to think I judge poeple on there individual soul not theresexual behavior<sp?> . on a completely different topic I really hate when poeple use "Christian" to mean bad or conservative not all christians are bad or conservative. Religion and sex don't mix they never will in any way... cept maybe in some old greek rituals. Don't get me wrong now I agree with most of what stonesky siad in her or him(sorry I never noticed) first post. I am openly straight and I encourage my friends to be open with me on there sexuality. I don't use it to judge but I do feel I should know. in any event i am starting to ramble so everyone be happy :)
re 181: Lexi, chill, I was being ky00t.
ky00t? buh?
uh...ditto ohhh..cute
people, stop taking things so personal and literaly. I didn't say that chritains are bad. I am not talking about the hole christain relgion or people. and not to offend but I don't think you have to come out of the closet to say that you are striaght. If you are straight there are usually no problems with you being so in society since it is more excepted.
depends on which society. and coming out as bi is particularly hard...moreson...I have been told, among gay friends than straight ones.
Actually, it's not even most of the laws that're bad. Michigan's
sodomy laws serve admirably in rape cases where other charges might not stick.
They also serve admirably in arresting queers who aren't doing anything to anyone but themselves... If rape cases have failings in certain areas, change the rape laws, don't use absurd laws.
actually, the sodomy laws were originnally used in rape cases, since if no law is writting common law has it that VAGINAL intercourse must take place for it to be rape.
i don't think anyone is saying that it should be legal to rape anyone else in any way, shape or form... just that it's dumb to make sodomy illegal in general just for use in rape cases, when you could simply add a clause to the rape laws for non-vaginal intercourse
well, it's not "rape" anymore, it's variaing degrees of "sexuall misconduct" so that's how they solved it
but two people who consented could still be charged with sexual misconduct.
<steve looks around and see's no reason to talk anymore and promptly walks out the door>
You shouldn't be fucking in a bathroom anyways. Duh.
? nevermind....don't wanna know.
This has been linked from hither to yon... from Sex to GLB.
re 195: What if it's your own bathroom? just a question...
to get back to the question in #0: since survival of the species is a major drive in *every* species on the planet, i doubt that heterosexuality is completely abnormal. studies have shown examples of homosexual behavior in most known species as well, so i doubt that homosexuality is completely abnormal. i think that most people fall somewhere along the line between completely hetero and completely homo i also think that the societal pressure to be hetero at any cost originated from either the patriarchy or the church (or both) way back during their infancies. being able to dictate both reproductive and sexual privileges in any society is a remarkable display of authority for whatever powers that be.
I don't know of any reason why homosexual behavior would be especially beneficial to any hypothetical genes that might be involved, but it might be a side-effect of something else that is good, and it evidently is not terribly detrimental, to the extent that it is genetically determined, since it is obviously common and persistant in humans and many other animals. But who cares? We don't seem to worry much about a possible genetic basis for liking purple silk lingerie. Homosexuality strikes me as no more threatening or problematic than purple sex lingerie. But I have no idea what we are arguing about here, actually.
Hey LexiLove, I like Miggy's description of why he's gay. The thing about the line, and at one end is the label 'straight' and at the other 'gay,' and how he just falls somewhere closer to 'gay' on that line than he does to straight.
it's the theorm that's ben out tharere awhile erinn i forget the inventer of the scale but it's from 1-10
Greg, are you thinking of the Kinsey Scale, which runs from 0 (completely het) to 6 (completely gay)?
yha, 'cept they always told us it wsa 1019 err 1-10
miss migi...I wish he had been at the reunion...I wouldn't have let him go...or jonathan for that matter. <huggle rar>
then they always told you wrong, greg =} it's 0-6
Jess-Head, where've you been, love? *hughughug*
Sorry I drift a lot... {;
Thanx for telling me the name of that scale.. I think that's what Miggy was
refering to, he just didn;t say it.
Anybody remember the discussion about the scale? Brighn, you seemed to know what it was, can you elaborate on it?
Kinsey's original scale, to my understanding, was based on behavoir. However, in common usage, it refers to attraction: 0 -- Opposite sex attraction only. The thought of engaging in same-sex sexual encounters is not appealing 1 -- Opposite sex attraction. The thought of engaging in sam-sex sexual encounters evokes curiosity, but little else 2 -- Opposite sex attraction primarily. The thought of engaging in same-sex encounters is interesting, even appealing, but not the principle form of attraction 3 -- Completely bisexual. Freely capabl of having satisfying relationships with members of either gender 4 -- Same sex attraction primarily 5 -- Same sex attraction 6 -- Same sex attraction only There are problems with the scale: 1) It doesn't allow for a distinction between bisexuals and what are sometiems called omnisexuals. When the distinction is made, bisexuals are people who feel that the gender of their partner does matter on some level, but who are equally capable or attracted to men and women, while omnisexualsare people who don't even distinguish between men and women as partners, except on the obvious physical level. 2) IT doesn't (easily) allow for distinction between emotional intimacy and physical intimacy. On the physical level, I'm a 3, but ont the emotional level, I'm a 1. 3) From a philosophical standpoint, it implies that total heterosexuality is the basepoint and that homosexuality is anamolous. In fairness, I'd prefer that the scale went from -3 to +3 (with bisexuality as the basepoint).
Interesting. Okay, now that whole conversation that occurred makes more sense to me. Thank you very much.