11/11 SVU -- a real nauseator
smarteepantz
SVU gay episode. But the writers were able to stereotype the entire
Midwest, church going crowd as a bunch of ignorant psychos. Is this
kind of sanctimonious, condescending, PC caca now the new normal? Just
wondering.
More reading -- less defecant.
Connemara
news:mbh3rvcg0fjqgfkd0...@4ax.com...
Not sure that this post deserves a response. You are not going to get a
rise out of me -- which I imagine is what you are hoping you will get from
people considering your post.
The episode showed a very real attitude that exists among many right wing
religious zealots concerning homosexuality -- that it is a sin and that
anyone who is homosexual can and MUST stop sinning and ***become***
normal -- or what they define as normal, which is heterosexual sex where the
male is dominant, the woman is submissive and nothing outside of simple
intercourse in a specific position is performed within a strict code. This
is not unrealistic.
In fact, I have a relative who is trying to change one of their own children
because said child has told them s/he is homosexual. The parent has prayed
for, had friends pray for, has provided literature about how to stop such
behavior and become "straight", discussed where the parents might have erred
with their pastor, etc.....and continues to try and find ways to force said
child to change and end the sin.
The fact is homosexuality is a biological/pgysiological condition -- it is
not a choice. No one would choose to be a pariah -- hated and judged by
people so vehemently -- even to the point of murder -- like Matthew Shepard.
By the way, I don't believe that the show stereotyped everyone in the
Midwest. It did show what people who misinterpret what homosexuality is can
do to harm others, but it did not stereotype all Midwesterners, all
conservative right wing people or even all religious people (fanatics or
otherwise.) It only showed the extremes that DO exist -- and they have
killed people solely because they were homosexual; just ask Matthew
Shepard's family.
Blessed be,
Michelle
--
"do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute
truth. avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. learn and
practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others'
viewpoints."
-- thich nhat hanh
William December Starr
smarteepantz said:
> Just an observation, but I could only stomach about 15 minutes of
> the SVU gay episode. But the writers were able to stereotype the
> entire Midwest, church going crowd as a bunch of ignorant psychos.
Look up "Phelps, Fred" someday.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
James
So once again the truth is "PC" (unless it's conservative and then that is the
gospel). Of course the Midwest doesn't bully and intimidate teens who are gay,
forcing them to flee to other parts of the country. Of course the Midwest
doesn't beat and murder a gay 21-year old and leave his body in the freezing
snow. Of course the Midwest doesn't have a reverend who wants to "pockmark the
nation from sea to shining sea" with statues saying Matthew Shepard is burning
in hell, or who pickets Mr. Rogers' funeral because Mr. Rogers didn't use his
show to teach kids that homosexuality is evil.
It sounds like you either agree with these views or you live in some Elysian
Fields where they do not exist. Brainwash therapy *does* exist, in many places.
Many of those so-called great Christians would rather see their kids or
brothers or sisters involved in tortorous, self-loathing treatment (which
frequently ends in suicide), than living happy lives of their own choosing.
That isn't PC. It's sick, and it is a part of reality, particularly in the
Midwest and the South. Unfortunately, your comments only reminded me that many
people are going to shrug this horrible "therapy" off as some great big PC lie.
James
>
>
>In fact, I have a relative who is trying to change one of their own children
>because said child has told them s/he is homosexual. The parent has prayed
>for, had friends pray for, has provided literature about how to stop such
>behavior and become "straight", discussed where the parents might have erred
>with their pastor, etc.....and continues to try and find ways to force said
>child to change and end the sin.
These types of people are all over the place. Then they whine and complain when
their child no longer has any contact with them. I finally told some family
friend who had "seen the light" and who kept going on about that since she was
such a big believer in making a choice, she had made the ultimate choice -
Jesus over her son. She still had Jesus, she didn't have her son, but she
should be satisfied, since, according to her beliefs, Jesus would be with her
forever and her son will be burning for all eternity. She shut the hell up and
I never had to hear her shrieking again. Thankfully she has moved away,
probably to some little cult, and neither I nor my parents have to see put up
with her hatemongering. It's amazing how intolerant these people are, and
they're so proud of it too.
Chris ®
The character from last night's episode was based on this man. The idea
that the writers made him up is ludicrous. These people actually pickett
funerals of gay men. However, including the picketting of a funeral of a
6 yo who died of AIDS in the guy's rap sheet was a little overboard.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one
behind me" - General George S. Patton.
Chris ®
>biological/pgysiological condition -- it is
>not a choice.
Actually, there is no proof to support this claim. The causes of
homosexuality are debatable. I am both conservative and a supporter of
gay rights, so the "homophobe" label usually tossed at people who say
this won't stick to me.
Regardless of the causes, I don't support the idea that a homosexual can
or should be "converted" to heterosexuality. Studies show that these
conversions merely increase the odds of depression and suicide and have
a startling failure rate. If homosexuality is a learned trait, it's
benign (unlike pedophilia, which is deviant) to society in general.
Chris ®
What "truth" is that?
James
>
>>So once again the truth is "PC"
>
>What "truth" is that?
The truth that repartive therapy is a destructive, dangerous practice which has
horrible consequences. The whole idea of not applauding these methods amounting
to PC is ludicrous. The worst part of it is there there is nothing wrong with
being tolerant or being thoughtful of others, and that has now been twisted
into cowardice by some kind of far-right mentality. PC, or liberalism, the same
old song.
James
>However, including the picketting of a funeral of a
>6 yo who died of AIDS in the guy's rap sheet was a little overboard.
Considering all the people who picketed Ryan White, it's not that hard to
believe.
Too bad they couldn't have had a scene where the fundamentalist claimed gays
and feminists were responsible for 9/11. That's what Falwell and Robertson did.
James
>
>No, "The Midwest" didn't do any of those things. Certain sick people
>IN it did, but not the entire region.
>
That mentality has to fester and grow, and I think that in some places, due to
religion, due to people staying silent, etc. the hatred flourishes much more
easily.
DevilsPGD
jmsb...@aol.comnospam (James) did ramble:
>It's amazing how intolerant these people are, and
>they're so proud of it too.
That's the scary part, the proudness.
--
In the 60's people took acid to make the world weird.
Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
Chris Crandall
: >Look up "Phelps, Fred" someday.
: The character from last night's episode was based on this man. The idea
: that the writers made him up is ludicrous. These people actually pickett
: funerals of gay men. However, including the picketting of a funeral of a
: 6 yo who died of AIDS in the guy's rap sheet was a little overboard.
"Overboard" describes Fred Phelps' resume. While I can acknowledge the
humanity of Phelps and his entourage, his actions are beyond despicable.
In Kansas, we've passed a law prohibiting picketing and demonstrations at
funerals, just to get him to stop.
Chris ®
>destructive, dangerous practice which has
>horrible consequences.
I agree with the premise that it's wrong and dangerous to do so. This
has no bearing on the origins of homosexuality, though.
Chris ®
>where the fundamentalist claimed gays
>and feminists were responsible for 9/11.
>That's what Falwell and Robertson did.
They did.
Chris ®
>I think that in some places, due to
>religion, due to people staying silent, etc.
>the hatred flourishes much more easily.
That's crap. Homophobia is everywhere, even here in New York City. You
seem to have a negative stereotype of Midwesterners, and you're
commiting the same sin you so piously condemn them for.
James
>
>I agree with the premise that it's wrong and dangerous to do so. This
>has no bearing on the origins of homosexuality, though.
>
I never said it did. I don't think even genetic proof will convince some people
that homosexuality is acceptable; they will say a) it is proof of a disease
which should be corrected, b) it is a grand conspiracy by some kind of evil,
all-powerful homosexual lobby. Regardless of whether or not any genes are ever
found, the therapy is cruel and usually completely unsuccessful.
James
>
>That's crap. Homophobia is everywhere, even here in New York City. You
>seem to have a negative stereotype of Midwesterners, and you're
>commiting the same sin you so piously condemn them for.
>
So I'm going around beating people up or praying that they burn in hell? Gee,
that's news to me.
Homophobia, racism, prejudice, on all sides, is everywhere. But in some places
the problem is much worse than in others. I don't see how you can dispute that.
David Johnston
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Chris_=AE?=) wrote:
>>The fact is homosexuality is a
>>biological/pgysiological condition -- it is
>>not a choice.
>
>Actually, there is no proof to support this claim. The causes of
>homosexuality are debatable. I am both conservative and a supporter of
>gay rights, so the "homophobe" label usually tossed at people who say
>this won't stick to me.
>
>Regardless of the causes, I don't support the idea that a homosexual can
>or should be "converted" to heterosexuality. Studies show that these
>conversions merely increase the odds of depression and suicide and have
>a startling failure rate.
That would in fact be evidence that homosexuality is a biological or
psychological condition rather than a choice.
Ursula
Well, a couple of things.
1. Someone who believes homosexuality is a sin may also believe that
while homosexual _desire_ is a biological/psychological condition,
which can't be changed, homosexual _acts_ are sinful, and to be
avoided, in the same way they believe extramarital heterosexual _acts_
are sinful and to be avoided. This is quite different from someone
who believes homosexual _desire_ is a sin, and or a sign of being
cursed/ inherantly sinful/ etc. (The latter seems to fit with the
Calvanist belief in predestination, the elect, etc.)
2. It is perhaps difficult, if one believes in evolution, to figure
out how homosexuality (particularly being exclusively homosexual,
rather than bisexual in behavior) fits in to any evolutionary pattern.
If it is a genetic trait, it would seem to remove carriers out of the
reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the advances in reproductive
medicine and technology of the last 50 years.)
3. Depression when someone tries to "convert" from homosexuality
doen't necessicarily mean that homosexuality is biological or
psychological in origin. It could just be realted to the social
context of being someone who has been living as a homosexual and is
trying to change their lifestyle.
For example, it could be depression because they are ending a
(homosexual) relationship with someone they care about. Depression
because they have been convinced that they have acted "sinfully."
Depression because other people they care about (parents?) are
disapproving. Depression because they are separating themselves from
a supportive social group of other homosexual individuals. Depression
because homosexual friends may be disapproving of their choice to
change their behavior.
Ursula
James
>
>2. It is perhaps difficult, if one believes in evolution, to figure
>out how homosexuality (particularly being exclusively homosexual,
>rather than bisexual in behavior) fits in to any evolutionary pattern.
>If it is a genetic trait, it would seem to remove carriers out of the
>reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the advances in reproductive
>medicine and technology of the last 50 years.)
And we know how popular evolution is in Christian circles.
>
>3. Depression when someone tries to "convert" from homosexuality
>doen't necessicarily mean that homosexuality is biological or
>psychological in origin. It could just be realted to the social
>context of being someone who has been living as a homosexual and is
>trying to change their lifestyle.
>
>For example, it could be depression because they are ending a
>(homosexual) relationship with someone they care about. Depression
>because they have been convinced that they have acted "sinfully."
>Depression because other people they care about (parents?) are
>disapproving. Depression because they are separating themselves from
>a supportive social group of other homosexual individuals. Depression
>because homosexual friends may be disapproving of their choice to
>change their behavior.
Depression because their soul is crushed, they are convinced that every part of
their being and everything that they believe of themselves is garbage, and that
the only way they can find a worthy purpose is to staple a Bible to their
forehead, get married, have some kids, and raise them to hate homosexuals. They
would have to cut ties with anyone they associated with while they were gay,
and associate only with people who are straight or who are ex-gay.
If homosexuality were simply a passing phase or something that can be cured
with lots of time, then the success rates would be much higher. There would not
be so many cases of suicide. There would not be so many cases of leading ex-gay
members being caught in gay bars, being caught having clandestine orgies or
relationships with men, or leaving their organization and running off together
(as the founders of Exodus International did). The change is not simply to stop
having sex with men, the change is to renounce all homosexuality and be "cured"
by entering a relationship with a woman. The idea seems to be that men only
want to be gay if they are around other gay men, that they are being converted,
persuaded against their better judgment, and they really just need some help
from straights to "straighten" them out. The fact that there are so many gay
men or bisexual men who never attempt to make contact with other men of a
similar inclination, who live their whole lives alone or in a sham
relationship, who don't even tell themselves that they are not straight because
it is too difficult to bear, contradicts the whole mass conversion agenda
mentality.
James
>
>
>> >That's crap. Homophobia is everywhere, even here in New York City. You
>> >seem to have a negative stereotype of Midwesterners, and you're
>> >commiting the same sin you so piously condemn them for.
>> >
>>
>> So I'm going around beating people up or praying that they burn in hell?
>
>I'm from the Midwest, and I *don't* do either of those things.
I didn't say you did. "Them", which the original person used, means a group of
people. Some of those people in the Midwest do use violence or they pray for
pain and destruction. Phelps does. Many of them don't. You don't. But some of
them do, and that is what I was being compared to. I don't see myself as being
in the same way because while I do think that the atmosphere in some areas
festers hatred, that doesn't mean I'm going to wish death or hellfire on the
people in those areas.
Walt
>> Just an observation, but I could only stomach about 15 minutes of the
>> SVU gay episode. But the writers were able to stereotype the entire
>> Midwest, church going crowd as a bunch of ignorant psychos. Is this
>> kind of sanctimonious, condescending, PC caca now the new normal? Just
>> wondering.
>> More reading -- less defecant.
To which Michelle replied:
>Not sure that this post deserves a response. You are not going to get a
>rise out of me -- which I imagine is what you are hoping you will get from
>people considering your post.
>
>The episode showed a very real attitude that exists among many right wing
>religious zealots concerning homosexuality -- that it is a sin and that
>anyone who is homosexual can and MUST stop sinning and ***become***
>normal -- or what they define as normal, which is heterosexual sex where the
>male is dominant, the woman is submissive and nothing outside of simple
>intercourse in a specific position is performed within a strict code. This
>is not unrealistic.
This has and will likely continue to be very true. Sadly, there are those who
think you have to be one way, mainly because of their religious beliefs that
come from a bunch of people who refuse to be educated on the subject.
I've lived and worked in the same building in Philadelphia for more than 15
years now, and we've had quite a few gay/lesbian couples who've lived here over
that time. Not once did anyone say anything bad about them here, mainly because
they lived what were (and likely still are) perfectly normal lives. Most who
are gay/lesbian are more those who were such who lived in the building I do and
NOT the stereotypical kind that has been portrayed in the past.
>In fact, I have a relative who is trying to change one of their own children
>because said child has told them s/he is homosexual. The parent has prayed
>for, had friends pray for, has provided literature about how to stop such
>behavior and become "straight", discussed where the parents might have erred
>with their pastor, etc.....and continues to try and find ways to force said
>child to change and end the sin.
This is absolutely ridculious. I suspect trying to do this (because of in my
opinion the parents and other's own insecurities) may cause more harm than
good. There is no good reason for doing this in my opinion.
>The fact is homosexuality is a biological/pgysiological condition -- it is
>not a choice. No one would choose to be a pariah -- hated and judged by
>people so vehemently -- even to the point of murder -- like Matthew Shepard.
>
>By the way, I don't believe that the show stereotyped everyone in the
>Midwest. It did show what people who misinterpret what homosexuality is can
>do to harm others, but it did not stereotype all Midwesterners, all
>conservative right wing people or even all religious people (fanatics or
>otherwise.) It only showed the extremes that DO exist -- and they have
>killed people solely because they were homosexual; just ask Matthew
>Shepard's family.
Again, a lot of ignorance by these people, who seem to be fueled by these
religious maniacs who are more concerned with keeping their "place" and making
a name for themselves in my opinion.
Walt
E-mail me at: Free...@juno.com
Check out a great web-based "Law & Order" Message board at:
http://www.alhenastar.net/phpBB2/index.php where you can also discuss many
non-"L & O" topics.
Walt
>>In fact, I have a relative who is trying to change one of their own children
>>because said child has told them s/he is homosexual. The parent has prayed
>>for, had friends pray for, has provided literature about how to stop such
>>behavior and become "straight", discussed where the parents might have erred
>>with their pastor, etc.....and continues to try and find ways to force said
>>child to change and end the sin.
To which James replied:
>These types of people are all over the place. Then they whine and complain
when their child no longer has any contact with them. I finally told some
family friend who had "seen the light" and who kept going on about that since
she was such a big believer in making a choice, she had made the ultimate
choice - Jesus over her son. She still had Jesus, she didn't have her son, but
she should be satisfied, since, according to her beliefs, Jesus would be with
her forever and her son will be burning for all eternity. She shut the hell up
and I never had to hear her shrieking again. Thankfully she has moved away,
>probably to some little cult, and neither I nor my parents have to see put up
>with her hatemongering. It's amazing how intolerant these people are, and
>they're so proud of it too.
Some of these people just refuse to understand and feel like they have to "show
others" they believe in their way and only that way.
Like I said in my other reply to Michelle, it's these religious maniacs that
are part of the problem, as many of these seem to be more concerned with their
own place than those who actually follow them, at least in my opinion.
Chris ®
>resume. While I can acknowledge the
>humanity of Phelps and his entourage, his
>actions are beyond despicable. In Kansas,
>we've passed a law prohibiting picketing
>and demonstrations at funerals, just to get
>him to stop.
Phelps is scum, but did he ever picket the funeral of a 6 yo AIDS
victim?
Chris ®
>homosexuality is a biological or
>psychological condition rather than a
>choice.
Nobody is saying homosexuality is necessarily a "choice", just that it's
origins are not scientifically established.
Chris ®
>evolution, to figure out how homosexuality
>(particularly being exclusively
>homosexual, rather than bisexual in
>behavior) fits in to any evolutionary
>pattern. If it is a genetic trait, it would
>seem to remove carriers out of the
>reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the
>advances in reproductive medicine and
>technology of the last 50 years.)
Interesting, but homosexuality doesn't necessarily negate procreation. A
homosexual would have to commit a heterosexual act to do so.
Chris ®
>sides, is everywhere. But in some places
>the problem is much worse than in others.
>I don't see how you can dispute that.
You're basing your belief that Midwesterners are more prone to
homophobia on your own prejudice. Not everyone in Nebraska belongs to
the 700 Club.
Chris ®
>who seem to be fueled by these religious
>maniacs who are more concerned with
>keeping their "place" and making a name
>for themselves in my opinion.
There's ignorance and ulterior motives on both sides of this debate. A
prime example is the belief that homosexuality is a biological or inborn
trait when no scientific evidence worthy of supporting this assertion
exists. This is another subject (like race) which cannot be discussed in
a rational way at the present time in this country.
Chris ®
>phase or something that can be cured
>with lots of time, then the success rates
>would be much higher. There would not
>be so many cases of suicide. There would
>not be so many cases of leading ex-gay
>members being caught in gay bars, being
>caught having clandestine orgies or
>relationships with men, or leaving their
>organization and running off together (as
>the founders of Exodus International did).
But there are homosexuals who have admitted to being converted and
there's no evidence that they have reverted back to homosexuality. Some
are now married. My opposition to this therapy is not necessarily based
on it's inevitable failure, but that the side effects of such a
conversion do not warrant the attempt, given the benign effect of
homosexuality on everyday life. Simply put, you don't chop off your nose
to cure a cold.
Chris Crandall
: Homophobia, racism, prejudice, on all sides, is everywhere. But in some
: places the problem is much worse than in others. I don't see how you can
: dispute that.
Sure, I think we can agree that race relations are worse in Boston, than
say, Atlanta. I think we can agree that there is more housing segragation
in the North than in the South. I think we can agree that the, according
to Census data, Lawrence KS is the most integrated city in the country.
But the simple stereotypes about region--you won't find me agreeing.
Chris Crandall
: 2. It is perhaps difficult, if one believes in evolution, to figure
: out how homosexuality (particularly being exclusively homosexual,
: rather than bisexual in behavior) fits in to any evolutionary pattern.
: If it is a genetic trait, it would seem to remove carriers out of the
: reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the advances in reproductive
: medicine and technology of the last 50 years.)
Not really. Think of sickle cell anemia--when it's only one-half if the
genetic makeup (that is, it is not the dominant gene), it confers an
advantage, but when both genes contributed from mother and father are
scikle cell, it confers a disadvantage (advantage and disavantage are all
about reproductive advantage here).
It might be that the biological substrate for homosexuality will show
substantial advantage when only one gene is present, but the obvious
disadvantage (in terms of reproductive success) when both genes are
contributed.
(The above argument is in its simplest form.)
James
>
>But there are homosexuals who have admitted to being converted and
>there's no evidence that they have reverted back to homosexuality. Some
>are now married.
Being married does not equal being heterosexual.
I know some people are bisexual. I can even believe, maybe, that some people
can feel a certain chemistry for each other which goes beyond gender. However,
I don't feel that someone can simply stop being gay. Can they stop acting on
their attraction to men? Yes. Can they have sexual intercourse with a member of
the opposite sex? Yes. They can have children and in some way they may be able
to live some kind of life. But I think that the impulses, the desires, the
energy surging inside which has nothing to do with sexual attraction and
everything to do with their nature and their emotions and how they have been
shaped in life, is still in there, being crushed because they are unable to be
what they want to be. They have to be conditioned into a "normal" life. And I
feel that this leads to a very unhappy existence. If people want to live that
way, then fine, but when these people go around trying to manipulate others
into doing the same, trying to convince them that it is a surefire success
story 100% of the time, that is where a line should be drawn. If somebody wants
to try a different path, they can ask a member of the opposite sex out on a
date. They can hang out with new people. They don't have to be told that they
are suffering from some kind of childhood sexual abuse or from media corruption
(which are the usual excuses these groups give for homosexuality).
People who feel they have to become straight because their family will disown
them, because Jesus will make them pay, etc. need support and friendship, not
brainwashing. If someone is from a deep religious or moral background and their
family and friends pushed them into reparitive therapy, then I have serious
doubts about how successful it was and how much they are simply trying to
please the people around them. I've known gay people who *were* happy with
themselves until they were psychologically destroyed by their so-called loved
ones, and it isn't pretty.
James
>
>>Homophobia, racism, prejudice, on all
>>sides, is everywhere. But in some places
>>the problem is much worse than in others.
>>I don't see how you can dispute that.
>
>You're basing your belief that Midwesterners are more prone to
>homophobia on your own prejudice. Not everyone in Nebraska belongs to
>the 700 Club.
I'm basing it on the mentality of some of the people there. Fred Phelps didn't
spring from my prejudice. The Nebraska Defense of Marriage Act (which is the
worst DOMA in the US and not only bans same-sex marriage, but does not even
allow gay couples to fight for any rights, not even the right to choose a
burial plot for your partner) did not spring from my prejudice. I don't think
it's prejudicial to feel that in some areas, a hostile and influential climate
of people can collectively influence the mindset and the atmosphere of that
area. Sure, every town in every state has one kind of bigot or another. But I
don't think it's a great slight against Midwesterners to say that some of their
states are incredibly bigoted. I'm a Southerner and although I sometimes cringe
at the assumption that all Southerners are homophobes/racists, I've seen more
than enough of this kind to understand why some people feel that way.
meredith
uleu...@yahoo.com (Ursula) wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:48:29 GMT, bl...@telusplanet.net (David
> Johnston) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:34:26 -0500 (EST), headban...@webtv.net
> >(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Chris_=AE?=) wrote:
> >
> >>>The fact is homosexuality is a
> >>>biological/pgysiological condition -- it is
> >>>not a choice.
> >>
> >>Actually, there is no proof to support this claim. The causes of
> >>homosexuality are debatable. I am both conservative and a supporter of
> >>gay rights, so the "homophobe" label usually tossed at people who say
> >>this won't stick to me.
> >>
> >>Regardless of the causes, I don't support the idea that a homosexual can
> >>or should be "converted" to heterosexuality. Studies show that these
> >>conversions merely increase the odds of depression and suicide and have
> >>a startling failure rate.
> >
> >That would in fact be evidence that homosexuality is a biological or
> >psychological condition rather than a choice.
> >
> Well, a couple of things.
>
>
> 2. It is perhaps difficult, if one believes in evolution, to figure
> out how homosexuality (particularly being exclusively homosexual,
> rather than bisexual in behavior) fits in to any evolutionary pattern.
> If it is a genetic trait, it would seem to remove carriers out of the
> reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the advances in reproductive
> medicine and technology of the last 50 years.)
There are homosexual animals (see
<http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html>. Unless
you think that the animals are making a choice, that would suggest the
genetic argument doesn't hold up.
--
meredith
Just say no to top posting.
James
>
>There's ignorance and ulterior motives on both sides of this debate.
You wouldn't say that brainwashing and forcing a life of suffering on someone
is more dangerous than a gay or lesbian who wants to believe they have a gay
gene? Many heterosexuals try to force gays and lesbians to "go straight". Gays
and lesbians usually don't try to force heterosexuals to become homosexual.
James
>
>
>
>Sure, I think we can agree that race relations are worse in Boston, than
>say, Atlanta. I think we can agree that there is more housing segragation
>in the North than in the South. I think we can agree that the, according
>to Census data, Lawrence KS is the most integrated city in the country.
>
>But the simple stereotypes about region--you won't find me agreeing.
>
Depends on the region. I've seen more than enough segregation and racism in the
South, although you are right that it's up North as well. I will say that race
relations down here have improved a lot in the past 5-10 years, at least from
what I've seen, but then that's going OT.
meredith
headban...@webtv.net (Chris (R)) wrote:
> >"Overboard" describes Fred Phelps'
> >resume. While I can acknowledge the
> >humanity of Phelps and his entourage, his
> >actions are beyond despicable. In Kansas,
> >we've passed a law prohibiting picketing
> >and demonstrations at funerals, just to get
> >him to stop.
>
> Phelps is scum, but did he ever picket the funeral of a 6 yo AIDS
> victim?
>
Dunno, but he picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard.
Nibby63
>are sinful and to be avoided>
Yes, but do these people protest, picket, send hate mail or murder because of
extramarital heterosexual acts?
Peachy Ashie Passion
> In article <20031112100421...@mb-m22.aol.com>, James
> <jmsb...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>
>
>>Of course the Midwest doesn't bully and intimidate teens who are gay,
>>forcing them to flee to other parts of the country. Of course the Midwest
>>doesn't beat and murder a gay 21-year old and leave his body in the freezing
>>snow. Of course the Midwest doesn't have a reverend who wants to "pockmark the
>>nation from sea to shining sea" with statues saying Matthew Shepard is burning
>>in hell, or who pickets Mr. Rogers' funeral because Mr. Rogers didn't use his
>>show to teach kids that homosexuality is evil.
>
>
> No, "The Midwest" didn't do any of those things. Certain sick people
> IN it did, but not the entire region.
>
Actually, I don't know what definition of
midwest you are using that puts Matthew
Shepard's death in the midwest.
That's the west folks. The real west, not
that middle of the country zone there.
James
>
>In article <20031112213631...@mb-m07.aol.com>, Nibby63
>Probably.
Have you ever heard of a gay man or lesbian murdering, trying to take away the
rights of, or beating up someone solely because they were straight?
I'm sure this has happened once, or twice, maybe more. But it does not happen
nearly as much as the reverse.
Nelson Lu
On the other hand, as generally a liberal on social issues, I am actually
troubled by the claim that "homosexuality is a biological or psychological
condition rather than a choice[,]" because it flies in the face of historical
evidence. Both ancient China and ancient Greece, for example, had societies
where men of sufficient means freely had sexual relations with both women and
men, without any indication that they had to "condition" themselves for it or
force themselves into doing it (as some gays/lesbians who have had heterosexual
relationships in our society claim that they had to). (There is, obviously,
less evidence on this is also true of ancient Chinese/Greek women.)
I must say that I don't buy the idea of sexuality as immutable. This, however,
does not mean that I don't agree with the principle of equal rights.
Connemara
Liam Devlin
>>2. It is perhaps difficult, if one believes in
>>evolution, to figure out how homosexuality
>>(particularly being exclusively
>>homosexual, rather than bisexual in
>>behavior) fits in to any evolutionary
>>pattern. If it is a genetic trait, it would
>>seem to remove carriers out of the
>>reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the
>>advances in reproductive medicine and
>>technology of the last 50 years.)
>
> Interesting, but homosexuality doesn't necessarily negate procreation. A
> homosexual would have to commit a heterosexual act to do so.
A man could just be a sperm donor - wouldn't ever have to see the woman
who conceived & bore the child. A woman could be artificially
inseminated, never knowing who the donor was.
I liked the earlier comment concerning evolution & Christians. :)
Connemara
No one has ever said that someone is exclusively one or the other -- or one
could not explain those who are bi-sexual.
I still believe that someone does not choose to be homosexual -- since many
people who are state that they have known they were homosexual since early
childhood; that they had these feelings for a long time. Children would not
intentionally decide to be pariahs -- to be part of a group that they know
is deliberately maligned, discriminated and put down. They would not choose
something they know would displease their families, especially at such a
young age.
In addition, culture can play a part in what is acceptable -- so perhaps in
Breek and Chinese culture acceptance of other behaviors allowed the practice
of behaviors that in other societies that were prevented from being
exercised in other societies. That does not mean that the sexual drives
were not biological or physiological or psychological -- it only means that
these people were allowed to act on them. In some societies they are not
allowed to act on them. For example, in some eastern societies young girls
have their vaginas sewn shut to prevent them from being sexual before their
wedding night. This is done to children as toddlers. It is cruel and
abusive -- but culturally acceptable in some places; just as some places
allow a man to murder his wife if she has been raped.
If one can accept that pedophilia, rape (which is a crime of power and sex,
although mostly control and power), and other sexual predilections are based
on hormonal and other biological factors -- why is it not possible to accept
that other sexual behaviors -- such as homosexuality and heteroxexuality or
bisexuality are based on such things? It could well turn out to be a
hormonal issue in combination with some chromosomal abnormality -- or a
genetic mutation or some kind. Or it could be nature's way of balancing the
population -- to keep from overpopulating the earth. Homosexual behavior is
normal among many species of animals, why is it so difficult for humans to
accept it among themselves as normal behavior?
Michelle
--
Knowledge without practice,
Is just like a glass eye,
All for show,
And **nothing** for use!!
Liam Devlin
> In article <20031112213631...@mb-m07.aol.com>, Nibby63
> <nib...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Probably.
Please - we know they don't. Many of those protesting picketing, etc.,
homosexual activities are the very same ones engaging in heterosexual
extramarital activities, including sodomy, even!
Michael D. Halbrook
news:20031112181350...@mb-m02.aol.com:
> People who feel they have to become straight because their family will
> disown them, because Jesus will make them pay, etc. need support and
> friendship, not brainwashing.
I belive that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, it is sinful, however I do
not belive, and I don't see where the bible endorses such views, that
Homosexuals have to "become straight". A repentant, abstanite homosexual
person is no more condemed to the fires of hell than the man with a short
temper that resists the urge to kill. All have sinned, all can be
forgiven. The urges are not what condem us, unrepentance of our sinful
behaviour is.
Michael D. Halbrook
@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
> Please - we know they don't. Many of those protesting picketing, etc.,
> homosexual activities are the very same ones engaging in heterosexual
> extramarital activities, including sodomy, even!
And this negates the fact that both acts are wrong how?
Chris ®
>the people there.
That mentality exists everywhere. Here in NYC our local school board
keeps re-electing a man who claims schools should be open on MLK Jr's
birthday because he was a Communist. His views on homosexuality are not
far from Mr. Phelps and his organization.
You can't defend your indictment of Midwestern culture. Please stop
trying.
Chris ®
>heterosexual.
I never said it was.
>I know some people are bisexual.
Which is another can of worms the biological argument opens up. Is
bisexuality genetic? Pedopilia?
Chris ®
>that the animals are making a choice, that
>would suggest the genetic argument
>doesn't hold up.
While interesting, this man's study does not conclusively prove
anything. It merely hints at a biological cause and it could warrant
further research.
Chris ®
>forcing a life of suffering on someone is
>more dangerous than a gay or lesbian
>who wants to believe they have a gay
>gene?
Those who support the biological theory want to use it as a reason to
further the acceptance of homosexuality.
>Many heterosexuals try to force gays and
>lesbians to "go straight". Gays and
>lesbians usually don't try to force
>heterosexuals to become homosexual.
No, but they want heterosexuals to accept their lifestyle without moral
judgement. Which is fine with me. But don't use a faulty, unproven
premise to do so.
Chris ®
>on social issues, I am actually troubled by
>the claim that "homosexuality is a
>biological or psychological condition
>rather than a choice[,]" because it flies in
>the face of historical evidence. Both
>ancient China and ancient Greece, for
>example, had societies where men of
>sufficient means freely had sexual
>relations with both women and men,
>without any indication that they had to
>"condition" themselves for it or force
>themselves into doing it (as some
>gays/lesbians who have had heterosexual
>relationships in our society claim that they
>had to). (There is, obviously, less
>evidence on this is also true of ancient
>Chinese/Greek women.)
Hmm. We seem to think alike.
>I must say that I don't buy the idea of
>sexuality as immutable. This, however,
>does not mean that I don't agree with the
>principle of equal rights.
The causes of homosexuality are entangled with the rights issue, and
that has destroyed any serious apolitical attempt to find it's true
causes. I simply do not accept the belief that a gene or chemical makes
gay rights any more or less legitimate than if it were a choice. This
country has laws protecting religious rights. Is Christianity
biological? Judiasm? Do those of these faiths have less rights because
they "chose" to worship in that way?
Chris ®
>those protesting picketing, etc.,
>homosexual activities are the very same
>ones engaging in heterosexual
>extramarital activities, including sodomy,
>even!
Uh, no we don't. That's a biased supposition on your part, as bad as a
Christian fundamentalist claiming most homosexuals engage in anonymous
sex with multiple partners.
Chris ®
>choose to be homosexual --
No, but one could be "conditioned" to become homosexual. I don't believe
pedophiles and sociopaths chose to be what they are, but no one is
making the claim that they were born the way they were.
>since many people who are state that they
>have known they were homosexual since
>early childhood;
I don't buy that argument either. I never knew I was anything sexual
until I was about 12.
T. G.
> 2. It is perhaps difficult, if one believes in evolution, to figure
> out how homosexuality (particularly being exclusively homosexual,
> rather than bisexual in behavior) fits in to any evolutionary pattern.
> If it is a genetic trait, it would seem to remove carriers out of the
> reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the advances in reproductive
> medicine and technology of the last 50 years.)
Maybe it's similar to the temperature related gender determination
that occurs in aligators and crocodiles.
I think there was a study done on pregnant women who were living in
Europe (I think in Germany) in the last days of WWII. They seem to
have had a higher number of offspring who were homosexual than normal.
There are suggestions that it may be stress related.
In times of stress, you may have a higher number of offspring if you
produce females rather than males. Perhaps the higher number of
homosexual births can be attributed to a mechanism for producing more
females that somehow went wrong.
Evolution is not a perfect process. Other wise, the panda would have
a real thumb. Besides which, nature is constantly experimenting, and
many of those are failures.
> 3. Depression when someone tries to "convert" from homosexuality
> doen't necessicarily mean that homosexuality is biological or
> psychological in origin.
It also doesn't mean that homosexuality has a single cause. I suspect
that this kind of behavior is much more complicated than that. For
some it may have a genetic basis, for others an environmental trigger,
either in the womb or later, for others it may be a sign of mental
dysfunction. Yes, that last also implies that for some people
hetrosexual behavior may be a sign of mental dysfunction too. And no,
I have no scientific evidence to back any of this up.
Theget
T. G.
> I belive that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, it is sinful, however I do
> not belive, and I don't see where the bible endorses such views, that
> Homosexuals have to "become straight". A repentant, abstanite homosexual
> person is no more condemed to the fires of hell than the man with a short
> temper that resists the urge to kill. All have sinned, all can be
> forgiven. The urges are not what condem us, unrepentance of our sinful
> behaviour is.
Ok, so you belive homosexual behavior is wrong and sinful. Do you
think it should be against the law?
Theget
James
>
>The causes of homosexuality are entangled with the rights issue, and
>that has destroyed any serious apolitical attempt to find it's true
>causes. I simply do not accept the belief that a gene or chemical makes
>gay rights any more or less legitimate than if it were a choice.
And yet you accept that people are conditioned into homosexuality. People don't
just look at swirling strobe lights and get hypnotized into deciding they are
gay, at least not that I know of.
As for legitimacy, there is no reason for the right to be discriminated against
or the right to have some kind of civil union with your partner to not be
legitimate. There is no great cause for societal destruction here. If murderers
and rapists can have so many rights, it's odd that in 2003 homosexuals still
have so very few.
James
>
>Those who support the biological theory want to use it as a reason to
>further the acceptance of homosexuality.
>
And how does this compare to strapping someone in a chair and running electric
currents through them, as the Mormons used to do to homosexuals (up until the
late 80's)? Or telling someone they are totally worthless and will die all
alone of AIDS if they don't repent and find Jesus? Or telling them that they
must have been molested as a child and that's the only reason they're gay?
>
>
>No, but they want heterosexuals to accept their lifestyle without moral
>judgement. Which is fine with me. But don't use a faulty, unproven
>premise to do so.
Have you ever wondered if maybe the reason that some people try to show this
premise is because so many straight people pull out the "people choose to be
gay/people were sexually abused as children and that's why they are gay" card
every time they see a homosexual? If people were treated with respect in the
first place, then maybe there would not be such a need to prove biology.
James
>
>In article <1WFsb.1388$p%6.12...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Liam
>Devlin <Li...@XXXX.optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> >>Yes, but do these people protest, picket, send hate mail or murder
>because
>> >>of
>> >>extramarital heterosexual acts?
>> >
>> > Probably.
>>
>> Please - we know they don't.
>
>We know nothing of the kind.
I think that if there was a wide range of gay men or lesbians going around
beating up straight people, killing them, protesting their homes, their
funerals, amassing huge amounts of money solely to discriminate against them,
etc. someone (definitely Falwell or Robertson, or some of our charming GOP
senators) would have pointed that out. Hell, when two Canadian men wanted to
enter the country as a married couple and were refused, it took about 3 seconds
for the right-wing groups to label them "domestic terrorists".
James
>
>You can't defend your indictment of Midwestern culture. Please stop
>trying.
Please don't give me orders. I explained my "indictment" several times. Whether
you agree or not is your choice.
James
>
>>Being married does not equal being
>>heterosexual.
>
>I never said it was.
>
That's what you were implying.
>
>>I know some people are bisexual.
>
>Which is another can of worms the biological argument opens up. Is
>bisexuality genetic? Pedopilia?
I don't think we'll ever know. I think that bisexuality is genetic. I think
that homosexuality and bisexuality may have something to do with environment as
well as genetics, but not that much, because so many kids raised by straight
parents are gay and so many kids raised by gay parents are straight. As for
pedophilia, I do think that is based a great deal on environment or past
sexual/physical abuse inflicted on the pedophile, but I guess people would say
that's hypocritical since I don't think homosexuality or bisexuality is based
solely on environment.
Peachy Ashie Passion
> In article <rVDsb.33117$n6.1...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>, Peachy Ashie
> Passion <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>No, "The Midwest" didn't do any of those things. Certain sick people
>>>IN it did, but not the entire region.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, I don't know what definition of
>>midwest you are using that puts Matthew
>>Shepard's death in the midwest.
>
>
> That doesn't mean every single person IN it though.
>
I'm not at all sure why you are
addressing this reply to me. You bothered to
cut the excess, so I figure you meant to.
But my point was that it's not anyone in the
midwest that killed Matthew Shepard. Why do
you feel the need to tell me it wasn't everyone?
Nelson Lu
James <jmsb...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>And yet you accept that people are conditioned into homosexuality. People don't
>just look at swirling strobe lights and get hypnotized into deciding they are
>gay, at least not that I know of.
>
>As for legitimacy, there is no reason for the right to be discriminated against
>or the right to have some kind of civil union with your partner to not be
>legitimate. There is no great cause for societal destruction here. If murderers
>and rapists can have so many rights, it's odd that in 2003 homosexuals still
>have so very few.
But your premise would imply that the ancient Chinese and Greek men that I
referred to had no choice but to be bisexual -- which would make it likely
that a huge percentage of the ancient Chinese and Greek population were born
bisexual. This, obviously, doesn't jibe with the idea advocated in modern
United States that 10% of the people are "born gay."
Something here doesn't make sense.
Nia
Nelson Lu wrote:
> But your premise would imply that the ancient Chinese and Greek men that I
> referred to had no choice but to be bisexual -- which would make it likely
> that a huge percentage of the ancient Chinese and Greek population were born
> bisexual. This, obviously, doesn't jibe with the idea advocated in modern
> United States that 10% of the people are "born gay."
>
> Something here doesn't make sense.
Bisexuality generally doesn't make sense in these debates. They're all
based on an either/or--you're either born gay or you're born straight,
you're either straight or you choose to be gay--and bisexuality (as well
as pansexuality, heteroflexibility, and the myriad of other labels that
pop up) throws a wrench into that by definition.
Of course, there is the Kinsey-based theory that most people are
bisexual--or, let's say, have the potential for bisexuality--although
they may stick to one orientation. So, ancient China and Greece make as
much sense as modern-day USA.
James
>
>
>But your premise would imply that the ancient Chinese and Greek men that I
>referred to had no choice but to be bisexual -- which would make it likely
>that a huge percentage of the ancient Chinese and Greek population were born
>bisexual. This, obviously, doesn't jibe with the idea advocated in modern
>United States that 10% of the people are "born gay."
That is a totally different culture. Cultures are influenced by different
standards of behavior. If people live in an atmosphere where bisexuality is
commonplace and they are involved in bisexual relationships from a very young
age (as the Greeks were), then of course it will be more likely to have more
bisexuals. In many of these cases I would seriously question how many of these
young men had a choice about whether or not they were involved in sexual
relationships with older men. I don't think that is the same as a teenage boy
who, let's say, is born in Utah, is deeply religious and would not even think
of having sex until marriage, and yet deep down he knows that he is attracted
to men and is only capable of being in love with men.
Scott
> Just an observation, but I could only stomach about 15 minutes of the
> SVU gay episode. But the writers were able to stereotype the entire
> Midwest, church going crowd as a bunch of ignorant psychos. Is this
> kind of sanctimonious, condescending, PC caca now the new normal? Just
> wondering.
> More reading -- less defecant.
I shouldn't feed the troll... but....
If you want to see people EXACTLY like the ones portrayed by the
preacher and his crowd, come to a NYC gay pride parade (last sunday in
June).
There's always a large crowd of them with the signs and their shaking
fists and their hatred and vile statements.
Hey, we gay people have to endure Jack Mcfarland and Boy George as
representing us, you can handle the burden of the sordid mess that
claims to speak for you.
Scott
> >biological/pgysiological condition -- it is
> >not a choice.
>
> Actually, there is no proof to support this claim. The causes of
> homosexuality are debatable.
And irrelevant.
Whether I choose to be gay or was born that way doesn't in any justify
someone denying me the right to housing, equal opportunity to
employment, or the right to walk down the street without being
assaulted. Not so long as we pretend to call this the "land of the
free."
Scott
> out how homosexuality (particularly being exclusively homosexual,
> rather than bisexual in behavior) fits in to any evolutionary pattern.
> If it is a genetic trait, it would seem to remove carriers out of the
> reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the advances in reproductive
> medicine and technology of the last 50 years.)
By this simplicistic application of genetics, there would be no heart
disease, far less cancer, sickle cell-anemia, Lou Gerhig's disease,
muscular dystrophy, etc, etc...
Not that I'm likening homosexuality to disease, but many, many traits
that are contra-indicated to the survival of the species have been
passed down genetically for millenium and will continue to be so.
The fact that evolution hasn't made homosexuality extinct is no
argument that it isn't genetic in orgin.
Scott
> there's no evidence that they have reverted back to homosexuality.
This episode was a 'ripped' from the headlines' of an incident of an
Exodus poster boy who appeared on the cover of the gay magazine "The
Advocate" with his wife signing the praises of his new conversion to
heterosexuality.
Some time later he was photographed by gay activists cruising a seedy
gay bar in DC known as a gay hustler hang out.
I can't speak to all of these "converts" any more than you can.
But for every one that seems to have worked, there are many episode
like this.
Ursula
>>uleu...@yahoo.com (Ursula) wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>2. It is perhaps difficult, if one believes in evolution, to figure
>>out how homosexuality (particularly being exclusively homosexual,
>>rather than bisexual in behavior) fits in to any evolutionary pattern.
>>If it is a genetic trait, it would seem to remove carriers out of the
>>reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the advances in reproductive
>>medicine and technology of the last 50 years.)
>
>And we know how popular evolution is in Christian circles.
>
Different people have opposed homosexuality for different reasons.
For example, the Nazis persecuted "Aryan" homosexual men because they
were removing their "good genes" from the reproductive pool.
Also, some arguments against homosexuality is that it is "unnatural"
not seeming to fit into the common understanding of survival of the
fittest, the propegation of good genes, etc.
>>
>>3. Depression when someone tries to "convert" from homosexuality
>>doen't necessicarily mean that homosexuality is biological or
>>psychological in origin. It could just be realted to the social
>>context of being someone who has been living as a homosexual and is
>>trying to change their lifestyle.
>>
>>For example, it could be depression because they are ending a
>>(homosexual) relationship with someone they care about. Depression
>>because they have been convinced that they have acted "sinfully."
>>Depression because other people they care about (parents?) are
>>disapproving. Depression because they are separating themselves from
>>a supportive social group of other homosexual individuals. Depression
>>because homosexual friends may be disapproving of their choice to
>>change their behavior.
>
>Depression because their soul is crushed, they are convinced that every part of
>their being and everything that they believe of themselves is garbage, and that
>the only way they can find a worthy purpose is to staple a Bible to their
>forehead, get married, have some kids, and raise them to hate homosexuals. They
>would have to cut ties with anyone they associated with while they were gay,
>and associate only with people who are straight or who are ex-gay.
Possilbly, but not necessarily. My point is that depression
associated with conversion therapy is not necessarily because a person
is inevetiably and biologically/psychologically homosexual, and
therefore inevetably depressed if they do not live as openly
homosexual, but may be because of its implications in ordinary life.
Major lifestyle changes bring stress and sometimes depression, whether
it is a long distance move, a marraige, the birth of a child, or an
attempt to change one's lifestyle from homosexual to heterosexual.
All bring changes in social status, changes in one's peer group,
changes in one's expectations from life.
I certainly haven't seen any reason to believe one theory over the
other.
>
>If homosexuality were simply a passing phase or something that can be cured
>with lots of time, then the success rates would be much higher. There would not
>be so many cases of suicide. There would not be so many cases of leading ex-gay
>members being caught in gay bars, being caught having clandestine orgies or
>relationships with men, or leaving their organization and running off together
>(as the founders of Exodus International did).
It is, perhaps, inevetable that one hears mostly about the
high-profile failures of conversion therapy, and not about those who
are content with these changes in their life.
If human sexuality is a spectum from heterosexual to bisexual to
homosexual, as some claim, then it is possible that some people
towards the middle of the spectrum might be happier with support to
live a heterosexual lifestyle, with the associated social benefits,
such as widespread acceptence of one's relationship, the relative ease
of having children in most cases, etc.
>The change is not simply to stop
>having sex with men, the change is to renounce all homosexuality and be "cured"
>by entering a relationship with a woman. The idea seems to be that men only
>want to be gay if they are around other gay men, that they are being converted,
>persuaded against their better judgment, and they really just need some help
>from straights to "straighten" them out.
That strikes me as a potential flaw in that particular philosophy of
"conversion therapy" rather than in the general idea that some people
living as homosexuals might not be happy that way, or might be happier
living in a more conventional heterosexual relationship.
I suppose the only fair way to judge is to look at each individual,
and find out if they are happy living as they are, or if they might be
happier living a different way.
>The fact that there are so many gay
>men or bisexual men who never attempt to make contact with other men of a
>similar inclination, who live their whole lives alone or in a sham
>relationship, who don't even tell themselves that they are not straight because
>it is too difficult to bear, contradicts the whole mass conversion agenda
>mentality.
How can one know if there are "so many" men living in a sham
relationship, or only a few? The fact that they are hiding
necessitates that their numbers are unknown, and one can not logically
argue that they are, or aren't, a significant proportion of the
population. It is an unknown, not a fact. It certainly can't be used
to prove a point statistically.
Ursula
Ursula
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Chris_=AE?=) wrote:
>>If homosexuality were simply a passing
>>phase or something that can be cured
>>with lots of time, then the success rates
>>would be much higher. There would not
>>be so many cases of suicide. There would
>>not be so many cases of leading ex-gay
>>members being caught in gay bars, being
>>caught having clandestine orgies or
>>relationships with men, or leaving their
>>organization and running off together (as
>>the founders of Exodus International did).
>
>But there are homosexuals who have admitted to being converted and
>there's no evidence that they have reverted back to homosexuality. Some
>are now married. My opposition to this therapy is not necessarily based
>on it's inevitable failure, but that the side effects of such a
>conversion do not warrant the attempt, given the benign effect of
>homosexuality on everyday life. Simply put, you don't chop off your nose
>to cure a cold.
>
Wouldn't the value of such therapy be best judged by what each
individual undergoing it wants from life? Some may find other
benefits from a heterosexual marrage than can be judged by weighing it
strictly based on sexual preference.
Ursula
Ursula
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Chris_=AE?=) wrote:
>>2. It is perhaps difficult, if one believes in
>>evolution, to figure out how homosexuality
>>(particularly being exclusively
>>homosexual, rather than bisexual in
>>behavior) fits in to any evolutionary
>>pattern. If it is a genetic trait, it would
>>seem to remove carriers out of the
>>reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the
>>advances in reproductive medicine and
>>technology of the last 50 years.)
>
>Interesting, but homosexuality doesn't necessarily negate procreation. A
>homosexual would have to commit a heterosexual act to do so.
That is why I included the caveats of exclusive homosexual behavior,
rather than bisexual behavior, (as with a homosexual commiting a
heterosexual act), as well as caveats about the advances in
reproductive medicine.
Ursula
Ursula
<Li...@XXXX.optonline.net> wrote:
>Chris Ž wrote:
>
>>>2. It is perhaps difficult, if one believes in
>>>evolution, to figure out how homosexuality
>>>(particularly being exclusively
>>>homosexual, rather than bisexual in
>>>behavior) fits in to any evolutionary
>>>pattern. If it is a genetic trait, it would
>>>seem to remove carriers out of the
>>>reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the
>>>advances in reproductive medicine and
>>>technology of the last 50 years.)
>>
>> Interesting, but homosexuality doesn't necessarily negate procreation. A
>> homosexual would have to commit a heterosexual act to do so.
>
>A man could just be a sperm donor - wouldn't ever have to see the woman
>who conceived & bore the child. A woman could be artificially
>inseminated, never knowing who the donor was.
>
>
True. But that has only been an option very recently. The social
structures regarding heterosexuality, homosexuality, marrage, etc. all
predate both reproductive medicine such as artificial insemination,
and birth control. Much of the stress regarding marrage,
homosexuality, etc. these days can be traced to how these medical
advances affect social structures designed long before they were
possible.
Ursula
Ursula
wrote:
>Ursula (uleu...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>: 2. It is perhaps difficult, if one believes in evolution, to figure
>: out how homosexuality (particularly being exclusively homosexual,
>: rather than bisexual in behavior) fits in to any evolutionary pattern.
>: If it is a genetic trait, it would seem to remove carriers out of the
>: reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the advances in reproductive
>: medicine and technology of the last 50 years.)
>
>
>Not really. Think of sickle cell anemia--when it's only one-half if the
>genetic makeup (that is, it is not the dominant gene), it confers an
>advantage, but when both genes contributed from mother and father are
>scikle cell, it confers a disadvantage (advantage and disavantage are all
>about reproductive advantage here).
>
>It might be that the biological substrate for homosexuality will show
>substantial advantage when only one gene is present, but the obvious
>disadvantage (in terms of reproductive success) when both genes are
>contributed.
>
>(The above argument is in its simplest form.)
True.
It took quite a while to figure out the benefits of being a carrier
for sickle cell, even after the genetic link with the disease was
known.
What traits would be plausable as benefits from being a carrier of a
recessive homosexuality gene?
One study I remember looked at overcrowding rat populations. Male
homosexual behavior (as well as increased male violence) showed up
when the population reached a certain density. It makes sense, I
suppose, as a population, to naturally have a non-reproductive sexual
outlet if the population is growing too large to be sustained.
Ursula
James
>
>That strikes me as a potential flaw in that particular philosophy of
>"conversion therapy" rather than in the general idea that some people
>living as homosexuals might not be happy that way, or might be happier
>living in a more conventional heterosexual relationship.
The problem is that you cannot simply switch. If people could do this, why
wouldn't they have done so? Brainwash therapy, shock therapy, all sorts of mind
games have been used to try to "save" gay men or lesbians for decades, in eras
when homosexuality was loathed even more than it is now. Yet homosexuality has
continued. I highly doubt that every single one of the men and women who live
in fear every day about people finding out they are gay, or about getting their
brains bashed in, would have turned down a shot at heterosexuality if that
heterosexuality was guaranteed. Many of them *have* tried to be heterosexual.
They date. They marry. They have children. And yet they are still gay, only now
they are living a lie they can't get out of without causing havoc for all
around them.
The general tactics used in this kind of therapy are that the person is a
sinner who must be saved. Or, they were abused and the abuse has perverted
them. Or they need to stay as far away from "temptation" as possible and only
cling to a very safe, remote life of contact with straights, dating members of
the opposite sex, or being completely celibate and praying that they will wake
up the next day somehow changed, etc. If this were all it took, then people
would not need intensive therapy to be "cured". They would not have to be
frightened that merely getting too close to a member of the same sex would
arouse them or make them feel confusing emotions.
We don't expect a straight man to look over at his football buddy and say,
"hey, women are such a drag to deal with, why don't we fuck around some and
just forget about chicks." I don't see why we should expect a gay man to go
look for heterosexuality solely because he is not happy. All he will usually do
is become unhappy in a different way, and bring a lot of headaches into his
life.
>
>How can one know if there are "so many" men living in a sham
>relationship, or only a few? The fact that they are hiding
>necessitates that their numbers are unknown, and one can not logically
>argue that they are, or aren't, a significant proportion of the
>population. It is an unknown, not a fact. It certainly can't be used
>to prove a point statistically.
Why not? You've never heard of the "confirmed bachelor"? You've never known any
men or women who lived alone all their lives? Of course some of these people
are straight. Some of them aren't. They are teachers, priests, very religious,
under the thumb of family, or simply choose to live a solitary life. They
choose not to ever let anyone know they are gay because either they aren't
interested in being out, or they know what the consequences of being out are.
One of my great uncles was that way, and then when he died and some old letters
he'd written to another man a long time earlier were found, some of my
relatives were shocked. It didn't seem that shocking to me.
James
>
>If you want to see people EXACTLY like the ones portrayed by the
>preacher and his crowd, come to a NYC gay pride parade (last sunday in
>June).
>
>There's always a large crowd of them with the signs and their shaking
>fists and their hatred and vile statements.
Or those charming people who go to Disneyworld and pass out flyers trying to
convert gay men, because the idea of gay men attending Disneyworld horrifies
them.
Liam Devlin
>>Being married does not equal being
>>heterosexual.
>
> I never said it was.
>
>
> Which is another can of worms the biological argument opens up. Is
> bisexuality genetic? Pedopilia?
Shouldn't the term really be "ambisexual" instead of "bisexual", e.g.,
"ambidextrous"?
Liam Devlin
> Liam Devlin <Li...@XXXX.optonline.net> wrote in news:1WFsb.1388$p%6.1280967
> @news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
>
>>Please - we know they don't. Many of those protesting picketing, etc.,
>>homosexual activities are the very same ones engaging in heterosexual
>>extramarital activities, including sodomy, even!
>
> And this negates the fact that both acts are wrong how?
I see nothing in my post that suggests that it does - please turn on
your irony detector.
While on the topic, how do you conclude that both acts are "wrong"?
Liam Devlin
>>Please - we know they don't. Many of
>>those protesting picketing, etc.,
>>homosexual activities are the very same
>>ones engaging in heterosexual
>>extramarital activities, including sodomy,
>>even!
>
> Uh, no we don't. That's a biased supposition on your part, as bad as a
> Christian fundamentalist claiming most homosexuals engage in anonymous
> sex with multiple partners.
Where's the bias? If you claim that homosexuals are picketing,
protesting & killing straight people, etc., you need to provide some
documentation. I certainly don't know of any such instances, yet I read
about people picketing, protesting & killing homosexuals (especially the
men, the pressure groups don't seem nearly so threatened by female
homosexuals) almost daily.
If your issue is with the 2nd part of my statement, I offer Bob Barr,
Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Helen
Chenowith, Dan Burton, etc., etc. This list is by no means exhaustive,
of course.
Liam Devlin
> uleu...@yahoo.com (Ursula) wrote in message news:<3fb29f11...@news.frontiernet.net>...
>
>
>>2. It is perhaps difficult, if one believes in evolution, to figure
>>out how homosexuality (particularly being exclusively homosexual,
>>rather than bisexual in behavior) fits in to any evolutionary pattern.
>>If it is a genetic trait, it would seem to remove carriers out of the
>>reproductive pool. (Especially prior to the advances in reproductive
>>medicine and technology of the last 50 years.)
>
> Maybe it's similar to the temperature related gender determination
> that occurs in aligators and crocodiles.
>
> I think there was a study done on pregnant women who were living in
> Europe (I think in Germany) in the last days of WWII. They seem to
> have had a higher number of offspring who were homosexual than normal.
> There are suggestions that it may be stress related.
>
> In times of stress, you may have a higher number of offspring if you
> produce females rather than males. Perhaps the higher number of
> homosexual births can be attributed to a mechanism for producing more
> females that somehow went wrong.
>
> Evolution is not a perfect process. Other wise, the panda would have
> a real thumb. Besides which, nature is constantly experimenting, and
> many of those are failures.
Good point, just look at the platypus.
>>3. Depression when someone tries to "convert" from homosexuality
>>doen't necessicarily mean that homosexuality is biological or
>>psychological in origin.
>
> It also doesn't mean that homosexuality has a single cause.
Another good point.
> I suspect
> that this kind of behavior is much more complicated than that. For
> some it may have a genetic basis, for others an environmental trigger,
> either in the womb or later, for others it may be a sign of mental
> dysfunction. Yes, that last also implies that for some people
> hetrosexual behavior may be a sign of mental dysfunction too. And no,
> I have no scientific evidence to back any of this up.
Good post.
James
actually helping any family), is outraged at the episode and that NBC is now
part of that much-dreaded, all-encompassing homosexual agenda. Geez, you give
these people an entire week endorsed by the President, and they still bitch
about one little program. Guess they don't want people to see the truth.
http://www.365gay.com/entertainment/news&gossip/111303Shownews.htm
Liam Devlin
> In article <3fb274f3....@news.telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <bl...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:34:26 -0500 (EST), headban...@webtv.net
>>(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Chris_=AE?=) wrote:
>
>>>Regardless of the causes, I don't support the idea that a homosexual can
>>>or should be "converted" to heterosexuality. Studies show that these
>>>conversions merely increase the odds of depression and suicide and have
>>>a startling failure rate.
>>
>>That would in fact be evidence that homosexuality is a biological or
>>psychological condition rather than a choice.
>
> On the other hand, as generally a liberal on social issues, I am actually
> troubled by the claim that "homosexuality is a biological or psychological
> condition rather than a choice[,]" because it flies in the face of historical
> evidence. Both ancient China and ancient Greece, for example, had societies
> where men of sufficient means freely had sexual relations with both women and
> men, without any indication that they had to "condition" themselves for it or
> force themselves into doing it (as some gays/lesbians who have had heterosexual
> relationships in our society claim that they had to). (There is, obviously,
> less evidence on this is also true of ancient Chinese/Greek women.)
Such men weren't exclusively homosexual nor did they think of themselves
as homosexual. In modern speak they'd be termed bisexual. Interesting
article recently in The New York Times [1] about black men and something
known as the "down low", which are upscale clubs where black men of
means could associate much like other upscale men's clubs, except they
would have sex with one another. They frequently are happily married
with families and do not regard themselves as homosexuals.
[1]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00611F7355B0C708CDDA10894DB404482
MAGAZINE DESK | August 3, 2003, Sunday
Double Lives On The Down Low
By Benoit Denizet-Lewis (NYT) 7969 words
Late Edition - Final , Section 6 , Page 28 , Column 1
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 7969 WORDS - In its upper stories, the Flex
bathhouse in Cleveland feels like a squash club for backslapping
businessmen. There's a large gym with free weights and exercise machines
on the third floor. In the common area, on the main floor, men in towels
lounge on couches and watch CNN on big-screen...
Liam Devlin
>>I still believe that someone does not
>>choose to be homosexual --
>
> No, but one could be "conditioned" to become homosexual. I don't believe
> pedophiles and sociopaths chose to be what they are, but no one is
> making the claim that they were born the way they were.
>
>>since many people who are state that they
>>have known they were homosexual since
>>early childhood;
>
> I don't buy that argument either. I never knew I was anything sexual
> until I was about 12.
That may say more about you than people who thought they were gay from
age 6-7 (not a flame, BTW). The few people I know well enough to discuss
this with knew they were attracted to other boys from about that age and
in early photos they look "fem" in the way they posed, etc.
Nelson Lu
James <jmsb...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>That is a totally different culture. Cultures are influenced by different
>standards of behavior. If people live in an atmosphere where bisexuality is
>commonplace and they are involved in bisexual relationships from a very young
>age (as the Greeks were), then of course it will be more likely to have more
>bisexuals. In many of these cases I would seriously question how many of these
>young men had a choice about whether or not they were involved in sexual
>relationships with older men. I don't think that is the same as a teenage boy
>who, let's say, is born in Utah, is deeply religious and would not even think
>of having sex until marriage, and yet deep down he knows that he is attracted
>to men and is only capable of being in love with men.
But that is entirely my point: there is no evidence that a substantial size of
the population is born homosexual or heterosexual. The fact that "bisexual
societies" existed in many ancient countries highly suggest that culture is the
determining factor for most people. If suddenly homosexuality becomes the
dominant sexuality socialeconomically, I'd expect that you wouldn't see just
10% of the population being homosexual.
James
>
>But that is entirely my point: there is no evidence that a substantial size
>of
>the population is born homosexual or heterosexual. The fact that "bisexual
>societies" existed in many ancient countries highly suggest that culture is
>the
>determining factor for most people. If suddenly homosexuality becomes the
>dominant sexuality socialeconomically, I'd expect that you wouldn't see just
>10% of the population being homosexual.
I don't think that would happen, mainly because these past civilizations had
people who were basically owned by others. These days there is (or at least
there used to be) more freedom of choice. That's why all the far-right
nutgroups go out of their way to discriminate, because they desperately fear
freedom, or change, or anything that threatens to upset their view of the
world.
Nia
Scott wrote:
> Whether I choose to be gay or was born that way doesn't in any justify
> someone denying me the right to housing, equal opportunity to
> employment, or the right to walk down the street without being
> assaulted. Not so long as we pretend to call this the "land of the
> free."
Well, actually, it does. The law only protects against discrimination
based on what people are born into or cannot change: race gender,
handicaps or chronic illnesses, etc. The big exception is religion,
which is changeable but protected because it's promised as a freedom,
but even in that case there are ways to legally discriminate based on
religion. So if homosexuality is indeed a choice, then yes, a
homosexual can legally be denied certain rights (although not personal
safety) based on that choice--the same way a drug addict can be denied
certain rights. This is the "land of the free," but freedom runs both
ways--you're free to make your choices, and everyone else is free to
judge you for them.
James
ex-gay movement (and also a book called Straight, by Wayne Beser or something
like that)
Chris ®
>homosexuals are picketing, protesting &
>killing straight people, etc., you need to
>provide some documentation.
I never made that claim. I was referring to your sweeping statement that
those who protest against homosexual rights are most likely themselves
hypocritical sinners.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one
behind me" - General George S. Patton.
Chris ®
>someone in a chair and running electric
>currents through them, as the Mormons
>used to do to homosexuals (up until the
>late 80's)? Or telling someone they are
>totally worthless and will die all alone of
>AIDS if they don't repent and find Jesus?
>Or telling them that they must have been
>molested as a child and that's the only
>reason they're gay?
It doesn't. I never said it does. Please READ what I post more carefully
before you respond to it.
Chris ®
>conditioned into homosexuality.
No I don't. Where did you get that from? I have consistently made the
argument that the origins of homosexuality have not been sufficiently
established from the very beginning of this thread.
Chris ®
>Whether I choose to be gay or was born
>that way doesn't in any justify someone
>denying me the right to housing, equal
>opportunity to employment, or the right to
>walk down the street without being
>assaulted. Not so long as we pretend to
>call this the "land of the free."
I totally agree.
James
>Well, actually, it does. The law only protects against discrimination
>based on what people are born into or cannot change: race gender,
>handicaps or chronic illnesses, etc. The big exception is religion,
>which is changeable but protected because it's promised as a freedom,
>but even in that case there are ways to legally discriminate based on
>religion. So if homosexuality is indeed a choice, then yes, a
>homosexual can legally be denied certain rights (although not personal
>safety) based on that choice--the same way a drug addict can be denied
>certain rights. This is the "land of the free," but freedom runs both
>ways--you're free to make your choices, and everyone else is free to
>judge you for them.
There is a difference between judging someone and discriminating against
someone. If someone is gay and admits that in the workplace, they do not
deserve to be fired solely for being gay. If they have a partner and can show
some signs of a commited relationship and want benefits for that partner, they
should have the right (straight couples can marry at a quickie Vegas wedding,
or when one of them is behind bars, etc.). Unfortunately it seems like
homosexuals are one of the minority groups whom every other group is happy to
gang up on, probably because, as you mentioned, their status did not come from
their race or handicap.
Chris ®
>who thought they were gay from age 6-7
>(not a flame, BTW). The few people I
>know well enough to discuss this with
>knew they were attracted to other boys
>from about that age and
> in early photos they look "fem" in the
>way they posed, etc.
And yet I know one admitted homosexual who didn't know she was attracted
to other females until she went to college.
Nia
James wrote:
> There is a difference between judging someone and discriminating against
> someone. If someone is gay and admits that in the workplace, they do not
> deserve to be fired solely for being gay.
Of course not, and I think that holds true whether it's a choice or
not. I'm just saying that, legally, there's no real basis for
protection of homosexuals' rights if their sexuality is deemed a
choice. It would be a tough one to cover.
> Unfortunately it seems like
> homosexuals are one of the minority groups whom every other group is happy to
> gang up on, probably because, as you mentioned, their status did not come from
> their race or handicap.
Well, that and the religious issue.
Liam Devlin
> In article <1WFsb.1388$p%6.12...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Liam
> Devlin <Li...@XXXX.optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Yes, but do these people protest, picket, send hate mail or murder because
>>>>of
>>>>extramarital heterosexual acts?
>>>
>>>Probably.
>>
>>Please - we know they don't.
>
As I said elsewhere, if you're going to claim that gay people protest,
picket & murder straight people, you need to post some proof.
>>Many of those protesting picketing, etc.,
>>homosexual activities are the very same ones engaging in heterosexual
>>extramarital activities, including sodomy, even!
>
> Perhaps. But just as many are not.
If "we know nothing of the kind", how can we know "just as many are
not"? Even if "just as many are not" were true, so what? What conclusion
are we supposed to draw from that?
Ultimately, even if gay people were picketing, protesting & murdering
straight people, it wouldn't justify protesting, picketing & murdering
them, especially the murdering part.
Liam Devlin
>>Where's the bias? If you claim that
>>homosexuals are picketing, protesting &
>>killing straight people, etc., you need to
>>provide some documentation.
>
> I never made that claim. I was referring to your sweeping statement that
> those who protest against homosexual rights are most likely themselves
> hypocritical sinners.
I said: "Please - we know they don't. Many of those protesting
picketing, etc., homosexual activities are the very same ones engaging
in heterosexual extramarital activities, including sodomy, even!"
I don't see most and don't read it as sweeping, but that's a judgment
call. I do not think of and don't like to discuss such matters in the
context of sin - not a valid concept for me.
Do you maintain the *none* of the people protesting, picketing, etc.,
suspected homosexual activities engage in heterosexual extramarital
activities, some of which are considered sodomy?
Liam Devlin
>>That may say more about you than people
>>who thought they were gay from age 6-7
>>(not a flame, BTW). The few people I
>>know well enough to discuss this with
>>knew they were attracted to other boys
>
>>from about that age and
>
>> in early photos they look "fem" in the
>>way they posed, etc.
>
> And yet I know one admitted homosexual who didn't know she was attracted
> to other females until she went to college.
And? It's not an all or nothing situation.
Liam Devlin
> In article <2277-3FB...@storefull-2232.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> headban...@webtv.net (Chris (R)) wrote:
>
>>>"Overboard" describes Fred Phelps'
>>>resume. While I can acknowledge the
>>>humanity of Phelps and his entourage, his
>>>actions are beyond despicable. In Kansas,
>>>we've passed a law prohibiting picketing
>>>and demonstrations at funerals, just to get
>>>him to stop.
>>
>>Phelps is scum, but did he ever picket the funeral of a 6 yo AIDS
>>victim?
>
> Dunno, but he picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard.
The whole idea of picketing a funeral seems odd to me - do they want the
body not to be buried?
Liam Devlin
>>headban...@webtv.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Chris_=AE?=) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>There's ignorance and ulterior motives on both sides of this debate.
>
>
> You wouldn't say that brainwashing and forcing a life of suffering on someone
> is more dangerous than a gay or lesbian who wants to believe they have a gay
> gene? Many heterosexuals try to force gays and lesbians to "go straight". Gays
> and lesbians usually don't try to force heterosexuals to become homosexual.
C'mon James, what about the homosexual agenda??
;)