Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Throwing-up (
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
) would seem to be an over-reaction to suggesting... quote:It would certainly be a return to some of the ancient forms of mattiage in the Bible.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Some wonders/ questions on 'being gay', from an ignorant libertarian :
~ ... - next stop, polygamy, I say ... but:
quote:1. I on the other hand have never come across any good evidence to suggest I wasn't born this way.
~ Surely gay folk do themselves no favour by going along with the now-obligatory assumption that they were 'born that way'? I've never come across one shred of good scientific evidence, to that effect. ... 'Yes - this is my chosen lifestyle - and you know, we think it's the SUPERIOR option': There would be plenty of evidence to support that, for sure (eg, higher educational levels among gay folk than straight, I expect). Or do gay folk really feel that in their hearts, and are just trying to be non-controversial and concilliatory?? I note that a key argument invoked by the UK politicians back in 1967 for the legalisation of homosexual acts was that they should not be criminal, as they were comparable to a 'disability'. Is that really the best we can do?? I think of my father's generation saying something like, 'Ahhh, bless, they can't help it, poor loves, they were born like that' - What's enlightened or dignified about that??
quote:
Originally posted by catalyst:
NEWSFLASH:
Marriage existed before the Bible was written.
It existed in cultures that never heard of the God of Abraham.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
never ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Hands up: who chose to be heterosexual because they believe it to be the SUPERIOR option?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
... I would love to see my gay friends and acquaintances be bold about it, and say, 'Yes - this is my chosen lifestyle - and you know, we think it's the SUPERIOR option'...
quote:A quick Google search might show you the scientific evidence which has been eluding you.
Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors, especially with regard to early uterine environment.
quote:I always think of the Will&Grace episode, 'Girls, Interrupted' (S.2 I think...) when I hear about 'healing ministries'...
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well I suppose that's not quite correct; there are people who will say they decided to be straight after living like gay people for a while: people in those "healing" ministries. I would be interested in asking them at what point they decided to be gay before that.
quote:I tried to choose to be heterosexual for around 17 years, believing it to be the superior option.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Hands up: who chose to be heterosexual because they believe it to be the SUPERIOR option?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
... I would love to see my gay friends and acquaintances be bold about it, and say, 'Yes - this is my chosen lifestyle - and you know, we think it's the SUPERIOR option'...
Anybody? Nobody?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
at glockenspiel for describing being gay as a 'lifestyle'.
quote:Sorry. No. It may be that it's counterproductive to tell an adulterer that they are wrong, or if they are just a work colleague, whether their morals are any of our business, but that doesn't avoid the fact that adultery is cheating on someone, betrayal, wrong.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... For example, if I worked with someone who was having an adulterous affair, I did not proceed on the basis that they were wrong.
quote:Does that change anything? I can see a therapist might conclude that telling an adulterous client that what they are doing is wrong might impair the counselling process. I also don't know enough about therapy to know whether it's a bad practice to let the client transfer moral responsibility for their conscience on their therapist, rather than take responsibility for it themselves. But that doesn't make adultery OK. It is still cheating on someone and betrayal, whether one says anything about it or not.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Enoch, I believe quetzalcoatl is talking about 'working with someone' as a patient in psychotherapy, not talking about 'working with' a colleague.
quote:The therapists I have been engaged with would be horrified if a client tried to shift their responsibility away from themselves when it is their fault... not very conducive to the healing process I wouldn't have thought... part of therapy is about accepting the wrong done and working towards fixing it...
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Does that change anything? I can see a therapist might conclude that telling an adulterous client that what they are doing is wrong might impair the counselling process. I also don't know enough about therapy to know whether it's a bad practice to let the client transfer moral responsibility for their conscience on their therapist, rather than take responsibility for it themselves. But that doesn't make adultery OK. It is still cheating on someone and betrayal, whether one says anything about it or not.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Enoch, I believe quetzalcoatl is talking about 'working with someone' as a patient in psychotherapy, not talking about 'working with' a colleague.
quote:I think this is right. The scientific evidence is rather patchy and inconsistent. No consensus body of work has emerged that pins down the causes of homosexuality.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In reality, there's no proof that all homosexuals are gay from the same causes. It could be genetic, or womb environment or birth order, or just cultural fashion. It could be an exclusive behavior or a part time hobby.
None of this should matter.
quote:Yes, I should have made it clearer. If you feel compelled to tell a client that they are morally in the wrong, then you should not be working as a therapist, I would say, at least with something like adultery, and certainly with homosexuality.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Enoch, I believe quetzalcoatl is talking about 'working with someone' as a patient in psychotherapy, not talking about 'working with' a colleague.
quote:Wouldn't that equally apply to adulterers and usurers? And if not, what's the difference?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Going a bit o/t, in any case, but I don't see how anyone can work therapeutically with gays if they see them as sinful. ...
quote:#1. All humans are sinful, but in any case,
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Wouldn't that equally apply to adulterers and usurers? And if not, what's the difference?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Going a bit o/t, in any case, but I don't see how anyone can work therapeutically with gays if they see them as sinful. ...
quote:Where can I find a Chapter of Userers Anonymous?
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wouldn't that equally apply to adulterers and usurers? And if not, what's the difference?
quote:(There's nothinig like starting by quoting yourself to feel like you didn't articulate it properly the first time :-) )
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I think this is right. The scientific evidence is rather patchy and inconsistent. No consensus body of work has emerged that pins down the causes of homosexuality.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In reality, there's no proof that all homosexuals are gay from the same causes. It could be genetic, or womb environment or birth order, or just cultural fashion. It could be an exclusive behavior or a part time hobby.
None of this should matter.
The best evidence is the evidence given by the majority of people that they feel unable to influence their sexual orientation by simple volition.
To ask how we can "prove it isn't a choice" is a rather odd formulation. The usual formulation in scientific investigation would be to say "what is it?" and if one started to ask specifically if it might be a choice, then the question would be "do we have enough evidence to prove it is a choice?".
quote:'You must not attribute my yielding to sinister appetites.'
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Wouldn't that equally apply to adulterers and usurers? And if not, what's the difference?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Going a bit o/t, in any case, but I don't see how anyone can work therapeutically with gays if they see them as sinful. ...
quote:'You must not attribute my yielding to sinister appetites.'
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Wouldn't that equally apply to adulterers and usurers? And if not, what's the difference?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Going a bit o/t, in any case, but I don't see how anyone can work therapeutically with gays if they see them as sinful. ...
quote:By that definition, I'ma situational parent but not a situational sibling.
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
.... I was, I think, a "situational heterosexual", rather in the way that heterosexual men can be "situational homosexuals" in prison or on ships and so forth.
quote:I believe "God makes men who are attracted to men and women who are attracted to women"
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Some wonders/ questions on 'being gay', from an ignorant libertarian :
~ Surely gay folk do themselves no favour by going along with the now-obligatory assumption that they were 'born that way'?
quote:I don't agree, and think that might be bad theology, but for a quite different reason.
Originally posted by Bax:
I believe "God makes men who are attracted to men and women who are attracted to women"
I suppose in common parlance this comes out as 'born that way', but it is a theological not a scientific statement.
If this is a correct belief, then the church will catch up in God's good time.
quote:That is definitely good theology and I'd agree has largely been left out of this debate.
If it is incorrect, God is merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love.
quote:It is very, very dangerous to hang any kind of conclusions, particularly religious or moral/ethical, on what science has not yet done. What C.S. Lewis says about basing our apologetic on what science has "shown" applies double to what science has not shown:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Despite a lot of work to the contrary no one has proven the existence of the so called gay gene.
quote:
We must be very cautious of snatching at any scientific theory which, for the moment, seems to be in our favour. We may mention such things; but we must mention them lightly and without claiming that they are more than 'interesting'. Sentence beginning 'Science has now proved' should be avoided. If we try to base our apologetic on some recent development in science, we shall usually find that just as we have put the finishing touches to our argument science has changed its mind and quietly withdrawn the theory we have been using as our foundation stone.
quote:I have. But they tend to identify as bisexual and then for one reason or another (monogamy, culture, et cetera) have decided they are monosexual and the bisexuality was a 'phase'.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there any credible study that has actually, you know, asked gay people whether they can remember at any point deciding to be gay? Or that has asked straight people if they at any point decided to be straight?
I have never heard tell of anybody who relates that at some point in their past, they realized there were two options, and freely and consciously chose one or the other.
quote:My nephew and niece had recognisably different personalities by their respective first birthdays. I'm sure they can make certain choices in their lives, but some parts of their personality are pretty much hard-wired.
Originally posted by Enoch:
True, we cannot at the moment of conception choose what personalities we would like them to have, but this is a job which God delegates to us.
quote:Unless you're making a very obvious biological point here, I can't see how that verse is relevant to this discussion.
Jn 1:13 strongly suggests that it is our parents who make us and we who make our children.
quote:I am making a very obvious biological point.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Enoch:quote:Unless you're making a very obvious biological point here, I can't see how that verse is relevant to this discussion.
Jn 1:13 strongly suggests that it is our parents who make us and we who make our children.
quote:Exactly. You chose to ignore choice and made the alternative decision to self identify as bisexual.
Originally posted by Spiffy:
[QUOTE] "Wait, we have to pick one gender and stick with it? WHOSE STUPID IDEA WAS THIS
quote:Scream if you all wish, but that is precisely the reason why I can't see how 'bisexual' can be a legitimate lifestyle, or one which the rest of us, whether straight or gay, should be expected to take seriously.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Exactly. You chose to ignore choice and made the alternative decision to self identify as bisexual.
If you are monogamous when in a relationship, you've made a choice - either same sex or opposite sex.
quote:Psalm 139:13-14, on the other hand, suggests quite the opposite: "For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well."
Originally posted by Enoch:
Jn 1:13 strongly suggests that it is our parents who make us and we who make our children.
True, we cannot at the moment of conception choose what personalities we would like them to have, but this is a job which God delegates to us. Because of original sin, some aspects of that will be fantastic, some mediocre and some flawed, but it varies from one person to another which bits are more and which bits less of each.
I don't think we are entitled to say, "God decided that X would be gay, Y would have acne, Z would be deaf and Jessica Ennis would be a great athlete".
quote:But that doesn't stop you being bisexual. You may well still fancy people of the other gender to your partner, but not act on that attraction. I remember being with friends, 2 couples (male/female) where both women and one of the men identify as bisexual and so all four commented on the fanciability of women at one point. LEft me a bit cold as Idon't really get the fancying thing (of either gender).
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:Exactly. You chose to ignore choice and made the alternative decision to self identify as bisexual.
Originally posted by Spiffy:
[QUOTE] "Wait, we have to pick one gender and stick with it? WHOSE STUPID IDEA WAS THIS
If you are monogamous when in a relationship, you've made a choice - either same sex or opposite sex.
quote:This reminds me of the quibble here about atheism being non-belief or belief in non-existance of a god. Is the asexuality a declination to participate or a happiness in being left alone?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can one shoose to be asexual? that is, can one choose to not be attracted to other persons in a sexual manner? Or is this something innate?
Of course, proving an absence of feeling is a bit tricky.
Or is the question irrelevant because no-one is upset about that orientation?
quote:Quite right. My bishop self-identifies as gay but is a celibate monk, and so has not faced the same objections as Gene Robinson.
Originally posted by Carys:
Equally if someone is celibate it doesn't stop them from being gay or straight if that's who they fancy although they are not acting on it (or indeed being bi, or asexual)
quote:Since one of those four is founded in fidelity and commitment, and the other three are not, the answer is obvious.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Where to start. Screaming perhaps?
Let me point out that bisexual is no more a lifestyle choice than homosexual or heterosexual. Within each orientation lifestyle choices such as promiscuity, open relationships, serial monogamy or life-long partnership are available.
Which combinations ought to be taken seriously and why?
quote:How true really is that? Wouldn't it be more accurate for him to say (depending on life history) that he used to be gay or would be gay, but is now celibate and a monk?
Originally posted by Bostonman
... My bishop self-identifies as gay but is a celibate monk, and so has not faced the same objections as Gene Robinson.
quote:I'd have to disagree - gay/straight are terms of natural personhood (in the same way male/female are), they are an aspect of what someone intrinsically is and they can't change those characteristics, although of course they can refuse to act on what we would consider the natural exhibition of them.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wouldn't it be more accurate for him to say (depending on life history) that he used to be gay or would be gay, but is now celibate and a monk?
Is a person really gay or straight, if they aren't actually being either?
quote:No - it will take some healthy experimentation during puberty for him to discover whether he's straight or not.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
'Congratulations, you have just given birth to a straight baby boy' - Is that at all feasible or meaningful?
quote:If there were a changeable genetic component then I guess it's feasible... with a complete ability at genetic engineering, selection of an embryo based on certain desired characteristics, it is probably feasible...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
'Congratulations, you have just given birth to a straight baby boy' - Is that at all feasible or meaningful?
quote:So you recognise that the gay/straight/bisexual bit of the categorization isn't a lifestyle choice and doesn't influence whether you take the individual's choices seriously or not? (Whatever that may mean in practice).
Originally posted by Enoch:
Since one of those four is founded in fidelity and commitment, and the other three are not, the answer is obvious.
quote:I bring you back to the fact that there is an almost 2-decade gap between knowing that I was sexually attracted to men, and having a sexual encounter with a man (I've never had a sexual encounter with a woman).
Originally posted by Enoch:
How true really is that? Wouldn't it be more accurate for him to say (depending on life history) that he used to be gay or would be gay, but is now celibate and a monk?
Is a person really gay or straight, if they aren't actually being either?
quote:It doesn't require any experimentation whatsoever, if you are thinking of experimenting in the usual sense of getting together with others. It just requires a lot of private bedroom fantasies and some furtive browsing of the internet (plus learning how to delete browsing histories).
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:No - it will take some healthy experimentation during puberty for him to discover whether he's straight or not.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
'Congratulations, you have just given birth to a straight baby boy' - Is that at all feasible or meaningful?
quote:Precisely.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... different outlooks on life, different experiences and different opinions on 'normality' play a significant part of what we consider meaningful about other people.
quote:I'm having profound difficulty reconciling that with:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
As to the other recent point, I don't see there's anything wrong in someone suggesting a new experience to someone else - there are such things as acquired tastes.
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I like guinness more than lager. If someone tells me that guinness is horrible, and harrangues me to switch to lager instead, I'm not going to pussy-foot around, pleading for tolerance by citing guinness-drinking as my 'orientation', I'm just going to tell them where to go.
) would seem to be an over-reaction to suggesting...
quote:Sorry to be technical, but the term "asexual" has a rather different meaning scientifically.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:This reminds me of the quibble here about atheism being non-belief or belief in non-existance of a god. Is the asexuality a declination to participate or a happiness in being left alone?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can one shoose to be asexual? that is, can one choose to not be attracted to other persons in a sexual manner? Or is this something innate?
Of course, proving an absence of feeling is a bit tricky.
Or is the question irrelevant because no-one is upset about that orientation?
People do care about asexuality. Typically it's seen as a "shyness" or a flaw that needs the help of others to "cure". Having asexuality as a known orientation can stop meddlers.
quote:Exactly. I knew I was gay for at least a decade before I had any romantic activity with another man. Sexual orientation exists whether it is acted upon or not. Celibate people are still gay or straight.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I bring you back to the fact that there is an almost 2-decade gap between knowing that I was sexually attracted to men, and having a sexual encounter with a man (I've never had a sexual encounter with a woman).
Originally posted by Enoch:
How true really is that? Wouldn't it be more accurate for him to say (depending on life history) that he used to be gay or would be gay, but is now celibate and a monk?
Is a person really gay or straight, if they aren't actually being either?
I was gay during all that time. I might have been a tortured, closeted gay, but I was most definitely gay - otherwise I wouldn't have had anything to be tortured and closeted about.
quote:Wouldn't a consistent application of this standard mean that everyone is celibate except during the very specific times they're actually having sex? I'm pretty sure that describing yourself as "celibate" because that orgy you had was over twenty minutes ago robs the term of all meaning.
Originally posted by Enoch:
How true really is that? Wouldn't it be more accurate for him to say (depending on life history) that he used to be gay or would be gay, but is now celibate and a monk?
Is a person really gay or straight, if they aren't actually being either?
quote:I'm trying to construct a definition of "non-smoker" which admits cigar smoking, and failing. I'm pretty sure that, similar to classifying someone as "gay" or "straight", no one assumes that a "smoker" will spend every waking minute smoking.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Point on 'real meaning' of celibacy taken, although I maintain we should still take care not just to rush towards boxing ourselves into categories ~ I smoke one cigar a month, for example - does that make me a 'non-smoker', or a 'smoker' - neither, according to the assumptions which spring into people's minds when they use these terms.
quote:What exactly does that mean? Most of the "categories" I fit into are of little relevance to my day to day doings. My blood type, shoe size, or eye color, for instance, are of little relevance unless I'm donating or receiving blood, buying shoes, or, um, doing whatever eye color is relevant to.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Yes, quite ~ but the category 'smoker' is of precious little relevance to my day-to-day doings.
quote:Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm trying to construct a definition of "non-smoker" which admits cigar smoking, and failing. I'm pretty sure that, similar to classifying someone as "gay" or "straight", no one assumes that a "smoker" will spend every waking minute smoking.
quote:Having your picture taken?
Originally posted by mousethief:
or, um, doing whatever eye color is relevant to.
quote:I suppose, if the photographer is deciding what background to put me in front of based on my eye color. Hasn't happened to me yet, but it could.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Having your picture taken?
Originally posted by mousethief:
or, um, doing whatever eye color is relevant to.
quote:Good example, although I myself don't.
Originally posted by Carys:
Choosing eye make up, if you do that sort of thing
quote:Try telling that to Jeffrey John. I take it from your tone that being gay and choosing to be celibate doesn't get rid of the "stain" of gayness.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Which would imply that GLBT people could choose to be in a relationship involving fidelity and commitment, AND THAT WOULD BE ALRIGHT, except that too many people insist that SSMs are not to be allowed, because...well, no good reason, except that the OTHER people don't want gays to be faithful. Pretty poor reason, ISTM.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Within each orientation lifestyle choices such as promiscuity, open relationships, serial monogamy or life-long partnership are available.
Since one of those four is founded in fidelity and commitment, and the other three are not, the answer is obvious.
quote:How true really is that? Wouldn't it be more accurate for him to say (depending on life history) that he used to be gay or would be gay, but is now celibate and a monk?
Originally posted by Bostonman
... My bishop self-identifies as gay but is a celibate monk, and so has not faced the same objections as Gene Robinson.
quote:To be clear, the throwing up is not at the idea of having sex with a woman. I don't find women disgusting.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Throwing-up (
quote:Really? I didn't have to experiment during puberty to know I was straight. Chance would have been a fine thing.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:No - it will take some healthy experimentation during puberty for him to discover whether he's straight or not.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
'Congratulations, you have just given birth to a straight baby boy' - Is that at all feasible or meaningful?
quote:I think we had a previous exchange which toyed with the idea that my sexuality was relevant to my job as a legislative drafter. Sadly, as far as I'm aware no-one's done direct testing of whether straights and queers write laws in a different style.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What exactly does that mean? Most of the "categories" I fit into are of little relevance to my day to day doings. My blood type, shoe size, or eye color, for instance, are of little relevance unless I'm donating or receiving blood, buying shoes, or, um, doing whatever eye color is relevant to.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Yes, quite ~ but the category 'smoker' is of precious little relevance to my day-to-day doings.
What's your point?
quote:I have openly speculated at work about whether my ingestion of caffeine and almonds has an impact. But that's because I actually ingest them at work on a regular basis. Whereas sexual encounters in the office are distressingly infrequent.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Whereas in my job in IT it's always more Pizzas.
quote:[looks around]
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I have openly speculated at work about whether my ingestion of caffeine and almonds has an impact. But that's because I actually ingest them at work on a regular basis. Whereas sexual encounters in the office are distressingly infrequent.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Whereas in my job in IT it's always more Pizzas.
quote:Yes, but sexuality isn't limited to sexual activity. Most celibate people still have sexual feelings, fantasies, thoughts and conscious and unconscious responses to other human beings of the same, or opposite gender.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Point on 'real meaning' of celibacy taken, although I maintain we should still take care not just to rush towards boxing ourselves into categories ~ I smoke one cigar a month, for example - does that make me a 'non-smoker', or a 'smoker' - neither, according to the assumptions which spring into people's minds when they use these terms.
quote:Gay Eye for the Straight Legislative Drafter, then?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sadly, as far as I'm aware no-one's done direct testing of whether straights and queers write laws in a different style.
I probably do it with more pizazz...
quote:Such as?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Our sexuality (and sexual orientation) affect the way we relate to men and women in all kinds of contexts.
quote:Well - Maybe. And that's really all I'm trying to say. It's a maybe. It is at least possible that at least some people 'discover', 'realise', come to 'construct' an understanding of themselves - on a largely 'a posteriori', rather than a largely 'a priori' basis.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:To be clear, the throwing up is not at the idea of having sex with a woman. I don't find women disgusting.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Throwing-up (
The throwing up is because the question itself is an appalling one. Can you imagine what would happen if I went around asking straight men how they knew they were straight if they hadn't tried sex with another man? Even in this enlightened modern age, I'd be putting myself at risk of some kind of physically unpleasant response.
But we don't go around asking that question, because we understand that sexual interest and desire has got very little to do with what you've actually done and far more with what you'd LIKE to do. That's what the word 'desire' means. But when people ask "how do you know they're gay", they are trying to treat desire as some kind of synonym for 'experience'.
quote:Have you met any? Or is this entirely a priori?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Well - Maybe. And that's really all I'm trying to say. It's a maybe. It is at least possible that at least some people 'discover', 'realise', come to 'construct' an understanding of themselves - on a largely 'a posteriori', rather than a largely 'a priori' basis.
quote:Many people find it insulting. People who continue insulting people who have said, "Hey that's insulting," are behaving in an appalling fashion.
So there's nothing appalling about that question, in and of itself ~ though granted it may be inadvisable, in our current age.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Have you met any? ...
quote:It's insulting to tell SOMEONE ELSE to keep an open mind on things THEY'VE decided because it's not really telling them to keep an open mind; it's telling them they've made the wrong decision.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
How can it be construed as insulting to keep an open mind on things which remain uncertain?
quote:Mostly I'm just quoting this because I'm green with envy that I didn't say it myself--but I will add that it becomes even more insulting to people when your telling them to keep an open mind is suggesting they have misinterpreted their experience of themselves.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's insulting to tell SOMEONE ELSE to keep an open mind on things THEY'VE decided because it's not really telling them to keep an open mind; it's telling them they've made the wrong decision.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Have you met any? ...
quote:Are you sure? I think you should keep an open mind about that.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Yes.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:Mostly I'm just quoting this because I'm green with envy that I didn't say it myself--but I will add that it becomes even more insulting to people when your telling them to keep an open mind is suggesting they have misinterpreted their experience of themselves.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's insulting to tell SOMEONE ELSE to keep an open mind on things THEY'VE decided because it's not really telling them to keep an open mind; it's telling them they've made the wrong decision.
quote:I'll be coming round to your place later in the year to kiss you and suck your penis. Keep an open mind.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
How can it be construed as insulting to keep an open mind on things which remain uncertain?
quote:I'm not quite sure how being attracted to people no matter their gender expression is a lifestyle. To paraphrase a comedian, I didn't get out of my bisexual bed this morning, take a bisexual shower, and go to my bisexual job where I drank bisexual coffee and worked on some bisexual spreadsheets.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Scream if you all wish, but that is precisely the reason why I can't see how 'bisexual' can be a legitimate lifestyle, or one which the rest of us, whether straight or gay, should be expected to take seriously.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Exactly. You chose to ignore choice and made the alternative decision to self identify as bisexual.
If you are monogamous when in a relationship, you've made a choice - either same sex or opposite sex.
quote:Yeah, but just how long has this cat known you?
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Now, whether or not you want to take me seriously is up to you (I am a very silly person, just ask my cat).
quote:No problem (as long as the money is right).
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I'll be coming round to your place later in the year to kiss you and suck your penis. Keep an open mind.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
How can it be construed as insulting to keep an open mind on things which remain uncertain?
quote:No, it's not. It's just basic epistemology, in the course of a conversation.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:It's insulting to tell SOMEONE ELSE to keep an open mind on things THEY'VE decided because it's not really telling them to keep an open mind; it's telling them they've made the wrong decision.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
How can it be construed as insulting to keep an open mind on things which remain uncertain?
quote:But that's the point at issue - it is an experienced-based matter - none of us have to follow a pre-determined 'script'.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:Mostly I'm just quoting this because I'm green with envy that I didn't say it myself--but I will add that it becomes even more insulting to people when your telling them to keep an open mind is suggesting they have misinterpreted their experience of themselves.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's insulting to tell SOMEONE ELSE to keep an open mind on things THEY'VE decided because it's not really telling them to keep an open mind; it's telling them they've made the wrong decision.
quote:Ok, will do.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Have you met any? ...quote:Are you sure? I think you should keep an open mind about that.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Yes.
quote:Please, I know this is DH where the following statement might seem out of place, but no more returning to nature-choice arguments!
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
But that's the point at issue - it is an experienced-based matter - none of us have to follow a pre-determined 'script'.
quote:That would in any case be too simplistic a dichotomy. There are a whole range of influencing/ limiting factors in our lives, apart from our biological make-up and moment-by-moment choices.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Please, I know this is DH where the following statement might seem out of place, but no more returning to nature-choice arguments!
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
But that's the point at issue - it is an experienced-based matter - none of us have to follow a pre-determined 'script'.
quote:I know that, I just dread the whole argument coming round again, and again, and again - although as I point out I know this is DH and such is the nature of DH topics that the same things go round and round and round...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:That would in any case be too simplistic a dichotomy. There are a whole range of influencing/ limiting factors in our lives, apart from our biological make-up and moment-by-moment choices.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Please, I know this is DH where the following statement might seem out of place, but no more returning to nature-choice arguments!
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
But that's the point at issue - it is an experienced-based matter - none of us have to follow a pre-determined 'script'.
quote:This is the basis of your entire participation in this thread, it seems to me--the main point you are trying to put across. I suppose it is true, if you're buying a car or taking out the garbage.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
...none of us have to follow a pre-determined 'script'.
quote:Your partner is cheating on you with three different people. There's no way to prove me wrong. Keep an open mind. Don't be insulted.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
... No, it's not. It's just basic epistemology, in the course of a conversation.
quote:I welcome the prospect of being proved wrong. But if what I've said is true, then I've done you a favour.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Your partner is cheating on you with three different people. There's no way to prove me wrong. Keep an open mind. Don't be insulted.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
... No, it's not. It's just basic epistemology, in the course of a conversation.
quote:Oh yes, I freely acknowledge the fact that it is an assertion - I'm using it to question why the opposite assertion has become the prevailing one, and whether it has to be that way. If you have anything in the way of scientific study, then do bring it to the table,
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:This is the basis of your entire participation in this thread, it seems to me--the main point you are trying to put across. I suppose it is true, if you're buying a car or taking out the garbage.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
...none of us have to follow a pre-determined 'script'.
It remains, however, an unproven assertion in regard to sexuality. To the extent that science has anything to say about the matter, it is in fact beginning to lean to the opposite conclusion....
quote:Exactly - this can't be said often enough.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
The experts on "being gay" aren't straight theologians and philosophers--the experts are those who live with it in their minds and their bodies.
quote:Because it's the self-reported experience of the vast majority of gay people.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Oh yes, I freely acknowledge the fact that it is an assertion - I'm using it to question why the opposite assertion has become the prevailing one...
quote:Yes, there it is, in black and white.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Your partner is cheating on you with three different people. There's no way to prove me wrong. Keep an open mind. Don't be insulted.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
... No, it's not. It's just basic epistemology, in the course of a conversation.
quote:I'm going to go a little farther than mousethief inquiring into your personal life. I "know" lots of people without really knowing them.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Have you met any? ...
quote:But I never have considered them as 'something other', to begin with; more 'not in the mainstream', which is also where I place myself, in various little ways.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:I'm going to go a little farther than mousethief inquiring into your personal life. I "know" lots of people without really knowing them.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Have you met any? ...
Have you ever been friends with someone who was gay--the kind of friends where there is absolutely no sexual interest on either side, but they would be on the really short list if you were looking for someone to go to the movies or grab a bite to eat?
That's the sort of relationship which makes people stop considering others--gay people, ethnic people, con-evos, Anglo-Catholics, Muslims, whatever--as "something other", or something suitable for a philosophical discussion without listening to the experiences of the people being talked about.
Your "opposite assertion" has become the prevailing one because more and more people have had that kind of a relationship with someone gay.
quote:How is it that straight people don't talk about the development/discovery of their identity in the same terms, then?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because it's the self-reported experience of the vast majority of gay people.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Oh yes, I freely acknowledge the fact that it is an assertion - I'm using it to question why the opposite assertion has become the prevailing one...
quote:Because straight are in the majority. There is no counter-cultural "identity" to discover.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:How is it that straight people don't talk about the development/discovery of their identity in the same terms, then?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because it's the self-reported experience of the vast majority of gay people.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Oh yes, I freely acknowledge the fact that it is an assertion - I'm using it to question why the opposite assertion has become the prevailing one...
quote:Interesting. Are such physiological differences detectable 'in advance', such as to act as a predictor; as well as 'after the event' (such as to act as a further description)??
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
While science isn't really expecting to conclusively answer the question "What makes people gay?" anytime soon, it has begun to find a few physiological differences. Some are more important, some undoubtedly less so. But the first study, noting an observable difference between the hypothalamus glands of gay and straight men, was published in 1991 (to the great chagrin of American evangelicals, as I recall). That's 22 years ago--not exactly new and cutting edge stuff discovered last week.
This article from a popular rag (not a peer-reviewed scientific journal) summarizes some of the findings to date. I have no doubt a simple google search on something like "physiological differences between gay and straight men" would turn up something more academic, but I'll leave that to your private research--I'm not here to be a reference librarian.
I would point out that you stated in the OP that you have never come across one shred of good scientific evidence to the effect that gay people are born that way. My comment about science was meant only to point out scientific findings, while not yet proving anything incontrovertibly, are not pointing in the direction you are trying to go.
quote:Bingo! But how much more enlivening and challenging (and fun!) it is for anyone who acts 'counter-culturally' (in any fashion) to say ~ 'I'm gonna be different, baby!'; rather than 'Awfully sorry, but I can't help it'.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Because straight are in the majority. There is no counter-cultural "identity" to discover.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:How is it that straight people don't talk about the development/discovery of their identity in the same terms, then?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because it's the self-reported experience of the vast majority of gay people.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Oh yes, I freely acknowledge the fact that it is an assertion - I'm using it to question why the opposite assertion has become the prevailing one...
quote:Exactly - Hence the 'retreat' into having to come up with a 'justification' - We have a long way yet to go.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Right, because people want to be kicked out of their homes, ostracized by their families, subjected to a higher degree of violent hate crimes and discriminated in the workplace all for yucks. Fun times!
quote:So why does my arousal at the sight/thought of men, but my lack of arousal at the sight/thought of women, not count as an 'experience'?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:But that's the point at issue - it is an experienced-based matter - none of us have to follow a pre-determined 'script'.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:Mostly I'm just quoting this because I'm green with envy that I didn't say it myself--but I will add that it becomes even more insulting to people when your telling them to keep an open mind is suggesting they have misinterpreted their experience of themselves.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's insulting to tell SOMEONE ELSE to keep an open mind on things THEY'VE decided because it's not really telling them to keep an open mind; it's telling them they've made the wrong decision.
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Bingo! But how much more enlivening and challenging (and fun!) it is for anyone who acts 'counter-culturally' (in any fashion) to say ~ 'I'm gonna be different, baby!'; rather than 'Awfully sorry, but I can't help it'.
quote:No. Just. No. #1, because as people have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, nobody decides one day, 'I'm gonna be gay', and #2, because being gay reqires no apology.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Bingo! But how much more enlivening and challenging (and fun!) it is for anyone who acts 'counter-culturally' (in any fashion) to say ~ 'I'm gonna be different, baby!'; rather than 'Awfully sorry, but I can't help it'.
quote:If no one feels the need to justify ~ then great, that's progress.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I don't understand what you're arguing. No one needs to come up with a justification. It simply is.
If you want to dismiss the experience of gay people, who come from a variety of backgrounds and have a diverse set of beliefs and experience, you'll have to do better than this. For most of us, our sexual orientation is a permanent part of who we are. Many of us tried to live straight lives and it didn't work. Being gay isn't a lark or done for fun.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:If #2 was true, then different sexual preferences would be entirely uncontroversial - it would be nice if they were - but they're clearly not - and merely citing #1 doesn't get us much further forward to that goal - is what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:No. Just. No. #1, because as people have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, nobody decides one day, 'I'm gonna be gay', and #2, because being gay reqires no apology.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Bingo! But how much more enlivening and challenging (and fun!) it is for anyone who acts 'counter-culturally' (in any fashion) to say ~ 'I'm gonna be different, baby!'; rather than 'Awfully sorry, but I can't help it'.
quote:That's the thing - it is not the done thing to say that they 'made a choice', any more - But this is then merely translated into a 'more to be pitied than blamed' approach, for those who take a dim view of such practices.
Originally posted by mousethief:
People don't "retreat into having to come up with a justification." They are told that they "made a choice" and they look inside and say, no, that doesn't match my experience, and describe their experience not as a justification but as a refutation of the claim that they made a choice. The phobes and deniers demand a justification. Describing your experience isn't "justifying" anything.
quote:Well, yes, you have me there - and I must confess that a large part of this stems from my general sense of disappointment at losing members from the 'non-conformity' club - We need all the members we can get.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Bingo! But how much more enlivening and challenging (and fun!) it is for anyone who acts 'counter-culturally' (in any fashion) to say ~ 'I'm gonna be different, baby!'; rather than 'Awfully sorry, but I can't help it'.
You know what? Not everyone has the kind of personality where they want to be culture-cultural and thinks how cool and fun it is to swim against the crowd.
Why don't I say I'm being counter-cultural? Because I'm bloody well not a counter-cultural person....
quote:Ermm, it does count as an experience - albeit one that doesn't tell you very much, until tested in practice.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:So why does my arousal at the sight/thought of men, but my lack of arousal at the sight/thought of women, not count as an 'experience'? ...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:But that's the point at issue - it is an experienced-based matter - none of us have to follow a pre-determined 'script'.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:Mostly I'm just quoting this because I'm green with envy that I didn't say it myself--but I will add that it becomes even more insulting to people when your telling them to keep an open mind is suggesting they have misinterpreted their experience of themselves.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's insulting to tell SOMEONE ELSE to keep an open mind on things THEY'VE decided because it's not really telling them to keep an open mind; it's telling them they've made the wrong decision.
quote:Of course you're points are true in this day and age... and without putting words in your mouth I think I know what you are driving at in your argument.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:If #2 was true, then different sexual preferences would be entirely uncontroversial - it would be nice if they were - but they're clearly not - and merely citing #1 doesn't get us much further forward to that goal - is what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:No. Just. No. #1, because as people have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, nobody decides one day, 'I'm gonna be gay', and #2, because being gay reqires no apology.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Bingo! But how much more enlivening and challenging (and fun!) it is for anyone who acts 'counter-culturally' (in any fashion) to say ~ 'I'm gonna be different, baby!'; rather than 'Awfully sorry, but I can't help it'.
quote:Thank you ~ I'm just not so sure that such an idea will ever diminish out of the public discussion, though ~ The 'norm' can use the 'You MUST accept that they have no choice in the matter' mantra to quite deadly effect, ie, precisely in order to reinforce the status quo - because it's always so much neater and tidier to put people in boxes, rather than see them as a mass of complicated individuals. Thus does 'diversity training' become 'conformity training'. So rather than just being free and easy with men wearing whatever they feel like wearing, for example, they will be made to feel that they must have been born in the wrong bodies altogether - surgery can then be performed, and hey presto, the taboo against men in dresses is maintained. Similarly, if your child is finding it difficult to mix in with other children, the DEFAULT position is that your child is on the autistic spectrum - it can't be because of the general lack of interesting company available for him - oh no.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Of course you're points are true in this day and age... and without putting words in your mouth I think I know what you are driving at in your argument...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:If #2 was true, then different sexual preferences would be entirely uncontroversial - it would be nice if they were - but they're clearly not - and merely citing #1 doesn't get us much further forward to that goal - is what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:No. Just. No. #1, because as people have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, nobody decides one day, 'I'm gonna be gay', and #2, because being gay reqires no apology.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Bingo! But how much more enlivening and challenging (and fun!) it is for anyone who acts 'counter-culturally' (in any fashion) to say ~ 'I'm gonna be different, baby!'; rather than 'Awfully sorry, but I can't help it'.
... only at such time as the view that it is acting 'counter-culturally' and a choice diminishes out of the public discussion will it become a community accepted norm ...
Until then, a game that must be played.
quote:I don't really have a comment on this apart from very true. We try, as humans, to simplify things down, try to make a snap judgement on new people we meet etc. etc. It is very much a point that gets forgotten about in many discussions that involve talking about individuals... no two individuals fit into the same box...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
...because it's always so much neater and tidier to put people in boxes, rather than see them as a mass of complicated individuals...
quote:I remember putting this on the end of course evaluation form once... I felt very much conformed afterwards into ridiculous tick box views of people... 'Group X can be identified because they exhibit a,b&c and believe d,e&f...'
Thus does 'diversity training' become 'conformity training'...
quote:Whilst not altogether convinced by the argument 'say it enough and they will believe it is true' there is some truth I guess... I'm not entirely sure I could say that with enough 'conformity training' men who happen to enjoy the feel of wearing a skirt/dress would necessarily reach the decision that they really wanted to be a woman despite never having actually felt like that, in the same way that the last bastion of socailly accepted 'male-only' dress, the tie, makes me feel anymore manly despite wearing one five days a week.
So rather than just being free and easy with men wearing whatever they feel like wearing, for example, they will be made to feel that they must have been born in the wrong bodies altogether - surgery can then be performed, and hey presto, the taboo against men in dresses is maintained.
quote:Having taught for three years this is very true - it is actually the same symptom many have when it come sto LGBT people. Because it is a 'deviation' from the majority 'normal, heterosexual, sociable' frame of reference there must be something wrong when infact more than half of all kids I've seen sent away for testing come back clean as a whistle so to say and actually do find that their peers just don't entertain them, or the behaviour they exhibit is the result of an external cause.
Similarly, if your child is finding it difficult to mix in with other children, the DEFAULT position is that your child is on the autistic spectrum - it can't be because of the general lack of interesting company available for him - oh no.
quote:On both sides this is a statement that needs to ring louder... Strangely it is a common theme in much that I wrote as an undergrad. and since in research, 'have a or b, reject c or d if you like but be careful of what you will actually be getting from what you wish for.'
So, yes, it's all a question of strategy, I guess - but be careful what you wish for.
quote:Well, that's the fault of the people who continue to take a dim view of such practices, then, isn't it? Why are you telling gays they ought to be doing something about an attitude that is possessed by others?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
But this is then merely translated into a 'more to be pitied than blamed' approach, for those who take a dim view of such practices.
quote:What on earth do you mean, it doesn't tell you very much?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:Ermm, it does count as an experience - albeit one that doesn't tell you very much, until tested in practice.
So why does my arousal at the sight/thought of men, but my lack of arousal at the sight/thought of women, not count as an 'experience'? ...
quote:Whilst it is the 'fault' of the people holding those views...
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Well, that's the fault of the people who continue to take a dim view of such practices, then, isn't it? Why are you telling gays they ought to be doing something about an attitude that is possessed by others?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
But this is then merely translated into a 'more to be pitied than blamed' approach, for those who take a dim view of such practices.
quote:Yes. But I see no value in having people think that my sexuality is wrong and a choice rather than having them think my sexuality is a flaw and not a choice.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Whilst it is the 'fault' of the people holding those views...
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Well, that's the fault of the people who continue to take a dim view of such practices, then, isn't it? Why are you telling gays they ought to be doing something about an attitude that is possessed by others?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
But this is then merely translated into a 'more to be pitied than blamed' approach, for those who take a dim view of such practices.
Until such people take the next step (choice - well they can't help being different - it's really actually normal I have no problem) then we are caught in the game that is played between sides that are in disagreement and trying to convince each other is right... until LGBT & sympathisers convince by argument/the other side has an epiphany that the position they hold is quite wrong we must continue to act sensibly but also put the view we want to advance across...
If someone holds a view that Billy Bob they sit next to in class is as useful as two short planks I don't just allow him to hold that view and do nothing, I try and reason/show that such a view is in fact wrong and Billy Bob is capable of joining mensa at the age of 11.
quote:Whilst understanding your point, and in the main agreeing with the argument you are advancing as the idea that experimentation does not have to occur to decide on sexual preference, in the real world some forms of experimentation do occur around sexual habits...
Originally posted by orfeo:
I really don't think so. But that's pretty much the logical endpoint of this idea that who are you are aroused by is not a key indicator of whom you'd enjoy sex with.
quote:I haven't argued the point that people have moved from your latter point to the former, in fact I was saying it is a good thing that they have made steps which move them in the direction you are arguing is better (1 rather than 2 erroneous ideas about us.)
Yes. But I see no value in having people think that my sexuality is wrong and a choice rather than having them think my sexuality is a flaw and not a choice.
If those are the two options, then surely it's preferable for them to hold 1 erroneous idea rather than 2.
quote:I don't think glockenspiel has been - he has said that the choice decision used to be the default social thought (and it still lingers in some people's beliefs - as a cursory cursory glance at some posts on some threads here would show more clearly) however he is saying that the 'to be pitied for who they have been born as' is more of the norm for those who still can't get their heads around people being gay.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, I agree that further discoveries can be made during sex.
And I'm not saying that sexual attraction is sufficient as an indicator, but I am saying it is necessary. Going to bed with someone with whom the idea of going to bed with them hasn't been exciting is... well, frankly it's just a stupid idea.
On the last point, I know that you weren't arguing that. But in my view glockenspiel was, and has been from the start of the thread. He seems quite keen for us to go "yeah, we're counter-cultural and you don't like us for our choices, in your face, suckers". And for some reason he sees the erroneous pity as worse than the erroneous blame. Whereas I'd rather have the erroneous pity because at least it's only based 1 mistake rather than 2.
quote:Isn't that what this thread is all about? I have only given it a cursory reading though, so I may have missed something.
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I've been following this thread in the hope of finding out what the current scientific evidence is on the subject of the origin of a homosexual orientation (inborn or acquired)and I was pleased to find this article in a link from a link from a link in a previous post, which might make a contribution to the debate.
Angus
quote:Certainly, which is why I say that sexual attraction isn't everything...
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely a gay or straight orientation is about more than just whom you will enjoy having sex with more? It seems to trivialize the whole discussion to say to a straight guy, "Well, it's better to have sex with a man who's great in the sack than with a frigid woman." Which is the endpoint of the argument you're advancing, Sergius-Melli.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What the blazes do the words homosexual and heterosexual mean, if they're not about sexual attraction then?quote:Sorry, I've gone back and re-read the post I put and the post by mousetheif that I was replying to...
Originally posted by orfeo:
What else is being homosexual about? Snappy dressing and a fondness for Kylie Minogue?
It feels like someone is saying being short-sighted isn't all about needing assistance with vision, or something.
quote:So then wtf is the purpose of this post, which seems to be no more or less than saying that sexual attraction isn't what it's all about?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Being gay (apart from a like for Kylie and others, and normally being much more classy) is about who we are and are not atttracted to... the three basic denominators, homo/hetero/bi-sexual are basically words to describe a sexual preference.
quote:It seems to me that Sergius-Melli thought I was talking about 'sexual attraction' as being confined to "one look across a crowded room and you think the guy is hot" kind of attraction.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So then wtf is the purpose of this post, which seems to be no more or less than saying that sexual attraction isn't what it's all about?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Being gay (apart from a like for Kylie and others, and normally being much more classy) is about who we are and are not atttracted to... the three basic denominators, homo/hetero/bi-sexual are basically words to describe a sexual preference.
quote:Ah yes. Whoops! Sorry, I missed it.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:Isn't that what this thread is all about? I have only given it a cursory reading though, so I may have missed something.
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I've been following this thread in the hope of finding out what the current scientific evidence is on the subject of the origin of a homosexual orientation (inborn or acquired)and I was pleased to find this article in a link from a link from a link in a previous post, which might make a contribution to the debate.
Angus
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:What a moving testimony to love.
Originally posted by Solly:
As the parent of a much loved gay son, I can assure you he has always been gay - no question of choice. Looking back, I can trace his journey from the age of seven or eight and was well aware of his orientation before he came out. He had years of lonliness before he gave in - and it is so good to see him happy and fulfilled. I have no interest in what he and his partner get up to in bed any more than I have any interest in what my heterosexual children get up to. The churches' attitude to homosexuality disgusts me: one cannot help but think people who take such a close and unnecessary interest in homosexual sexual activity must have doubts about their own sexuality.
quote:You are very lucky, as is Solly's child(ren).
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Solly, one of the great blessings in my life is a mother who has an attitude like yours. Would that every gay - heck, every human - had such loving parents!
quote:I don't want to in any way discount your son's experience, self-identity and your relationship with him, but is it worth us asking the question *how* do you know he was always gay? Yes, you could see things in from age 7/8 and this is a very common observation, but strictly all that means is that from that age he was evidencing behaviours and preferences associated with a homosexual orientation. However, that 7/8+ experience doesn't tell us *why* he had those behaviours then (and now). The issue of causality cannot be argued from such a basis. His homosexuality could by biologically based but it might also be environmentally based at an earlier point then the 7/8 years old milestone you refer to (or a mix of biology / environment).
Originally posted by Solly:
As the parent of a much loved gay son, I can assure you he has always been gay - no question of choice. Looking back, I can trace his journey from the age of seven or eight and was well aware of his orientation before he came out. He had years of lonliness before he gave in - and it is so good to see him happy and fulfilled. I have no interest in what he and his partner get up to in bed any more than I have any interest in what my heterosexual children get up to. The churches' attitude to homosexuality disgusts me: one cannot help but think people who take such a close and unnecessary interest in homosexual sexual activity must have doubts about their own sexuality.
quote:
Originally posted by Solly:
As the parent of a much loved gay son, I can assure you he has always been gay - no question of choice. Looking back, I can trace his journey from the age of seven or eight and was well aware of his orientation before he came out. He had years of lonliness before he gave in - and it is so good to see him happy and fulfilled. I have no interest in what he and his partner get up to in bed any more than I have any interest in what my heterosexual children get up to. The churches' attitude to homosexuality disgusts me: one cannot help but think people who take such a close and unnecessary interest in homosexual sexual activity must have doubts about their own sexuality.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:I wonder what sort of problems you think these people have? Whilst I tend to agree with you, there is a problem that they are/are not dealing with I was just wondering how others view it...
Originally posted by Boogie:
I couldn't agree more. My sons are both straight but when they were 13ish their Dad and I sat them down and made it very clear that if they were gay we would have no problems whatever.
I agree that those who worry about what others do in bed must have some problems going on. These days their excuse can not be ignorance - as it may have been in the past.
quote:No, your list seems about accurate to confirm what is my general experience when it comes to parents of gay kids...
Originally posted by Boogie:
Thank you - I got a lovely new camera in July
I would imagine people who hate the thought of having gay children may have a variety of problems and fears. Loss of control? Loss of their 'picture' of how their son/daughter would turn out? Fear that they may be gay themselves? Fear that their world-view is threatened? (Some people think if they change their mind on one aspect the whole 'house of cards' will come tumbling down). The idea that grandchildren may be off the agenda? Fears that their child will be treated badly? Problems with the 'neighbours' disapproving?
I'm not sure as I have had none of these.
quote:I'm not sure why this is a relevant distinction. I'm also not sure that "biological" and "environmental" are mutually exclusive categories. For instance, birthmarks and freckles have environmental (i.e. non-genetic) causes, but are also biological in nature.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
His homosexuality could by biologically based but it might also be environmentally based at an earlier point then the 7/8 years old milestone you refer to (or a mix of biology / environment).
quote:In this context biological would be something intrinsically genetic whereas environmental would be a developmental production of a trait.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure why this is a relevant distinction. I'm also not sure that "biological" and "environmental" are mutually exclusive categories. For instance, birthmarks and freckles have environmental (i.e. non-genetic) causes, but are also biological in nature.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
His homosexuality could by biologically based but it might also be environmentally based at an earlier point then the 7/8 years old milestone you refer to (or a mix of biology / environment).
quote:What about cancer? It's intrinsically genetic, and it's acquired, sometimes by interaction with the environment.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:In this context biological would be something intrinsically genetic whereas environmental would be a developmental production of a trait.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure why this is a relevant distinction. I'm also not sure that "biological" and "environmental" are mutually exclusive categories. For instance, birthmarks and freckles have environmental (i.e. non-genetic) causes, but are also biological in nature.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
His homosexuality could by biologically based but it might also be environmentally based at an earlier point then the 7/8 years old milestone you refer to (or a mix of biology / environment).
quote:I'm used to dealing with twin studies where we can separate out genetic and non-genetic effects. Cancer would probably appear as a combination of the two.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:What about cancer? It's intrinsically genetic, and it's acquired, sometimes by interaction with the environment.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:In this context biological would be something intrinsically genetic whereas environmental would be a developmental production of a trait.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure why this is a relevant distinction. I'm also not sure that "biological" and "environmental" are mutually exclusive categories. For instance, birthmarks and freckles have environmental (i.e. non-genetic) causes, but are also biological in nature.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
His homosexuality could by biologically based but it might also be environmentally based at an earlier point then the 7/8 years old milestone you refer to (or a mix of biology / environment).
"Genetic", "biological" and "environmental" need to be properly defined before one even tries to distinguish their effects. The only reason to try to distinguish them in this context is if someone is trying to claim that a particular environment made someone gay or lesbian, but a different environment wouldn't have. Good luck with that.
quote:And yet they are incredibly useful for doing this genetics/environment analyses.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Twin studies do have limitations. Just for starters, twins are not representative of the general population by the mere fact of being twins. Twins are more likely to be left-handed. Rates of multiple births vary greatly among ethnic groups. The number of twin births in some countries has increased dramatically with the use of fertility drugs and in-vitro fertilization.
quote:Still not seeing the relevance of the distinction or why it's relevant to how Solly relates to his son.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:In this context biological would be something intrinsically genetic whereas environmental would be a developmental production of a trait.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure why this is a relevant distinction. I'm also not sure that "biological" and "environmental" are mutually exclusive categories. For instance, birthmarks and freckles have environmental (i.e. non-genetic) causes, but are also biological in nature.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
His homosexuality could by biologically based but it might also be environmentally based at an earlier point then the 7/8 years old milestone you refer to (or a mix of biology / environment).
quote:i) The answer to your question is no
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Still not seeing the relevance of the distinction or why it's relevant to how Solly relates to his son.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:In this context biological would be something intrinsically genetic whereas environmental would be a developmental production of a trait.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure why this is a relevant distinction. I'm also not sure that "biological" and "environmental" are mutually exclusive categories. For instance, birthmarks and freckles have environmental (i.e. non-genetic) causes, but are also biological in nature.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
His homosexuality could by biologically based but it might also be environmentally based at an earlier point then the 7/8 years old milestone you refer to (or a mix of biology / environment).
Let's run a little gedankenexperiment for a moment, and hypothesize that there are two different types of homosexuals: genetic gays (who have a gay gene, or complex of gay genes) and environmental gays (who, I don't know, ingested a very specific ratio of lysine-to-arginine on the day their weight reached exactly 10.5 kg, irreversibly gayifying them). Would there be any reason to treat one of these groups different than the other? Is there any meaningful distinction between "born gay" and "gay from ten months onward"?
quote:I would point out that your argument seemed to have been developing this way: a genetic or an environmental (something intrinsic or something developmental) it may just be the way you have phrased it though...
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
ii) All the best research indicates that neither of these two scenarios is the reality
quote:Then it's bad phrasing. All the evidence points to a unique mix of the two in each individual.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:I would point out that your argument seemed to have been developing this way: a genetic or an environmental (something intrinsic or something developmental) it may just be the way you have phrased it though...
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
ii) All the best research indicates that neither of these two scenarios is the reality
quote:There always has been a problem for me with the environmental/experience part fo the argument, if anyone would like to have a stab at answering it:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think it does. There's lots of evidence out there, some of it good, some of it bad, but there isn't a single consistent and large body of evidence pointing in any particular direction. To say that means all the evidence points to a mixture is a bit like asking 100 people where Trumpton is, getting a mix of answers, and concluding that Trumpton is everywhere simultaneously.
One might say that it is common sense to regard complex human behaviours as likely to derive from both genes and environmental causes, but that's largely an argument from a combination of ignorance and common sense.
quote:My pastoral experience is that whilst the "absent father" model appears relevant to some male homosexuals, for others it is irrelevant. Indeed, the twin studies on male homosexuality would seem to indicate as much.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The view in psychoanalysis used to be that various environmental hurdles in childhood prevented the gay man from going through the Oedipal conflict, so that he remains fixated in an identification with mother, and had not identified with his father, and a heterosexual role. (There are other versions of this).
This has been often summarized in popular thinking as having a weak father and an over-powerful/seductive mother, but it's more complicated than that.
However, I think it's considered to be bollocks by most people today in the therapy world, although there are still some analysts who have a related view to this.
Another way of looking at this, was that psychoanalysis was basically defending a patriarchal view of sexuality and gender, and in the process, pathologizing homosexuality.
Many battles have been fought over this, mostly in the direction of depathologizing.
quote:You miss the point with your straw man. The whole point of research like this is that it *cannot* tell you what the single cause of homosexuality is. Rather, it can indicate certain things like an absent father makes you twice as likely to self-identify as homosexual (I don't know if this figure is true - I'm just creating an example). If the base probability of being homosexual is 1%, all this tells you is that those men with absent fathers still only have a 2% chance, but it's still double the rate for everyone else.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Peter Ould
Well, yes, plus the obvious point that lots of people have absent fathers! And lots of them are not gay. I think it was a case of post-rationalization by the psychoanalytic profession; I mean that they refused to look at their own assumptions, and they actually followed very illogical lines of thought. Probably, they wanted/needed to pathologize gays, (as a kind of unconscious defence of patriarchal norms), and then found a theoretical way of doing it. Does this remind you of anybody?
quote:I know that name, but not with positive conitations...
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Bailey
quote:I'm not decrying the requirement for empirical studies of family relationships, and so on. But psychoanalysis was itself a self-enclosed paradigm, which guaranteed its own conclusions, since it began with them.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:You miss the point with your straw man. The whole point of research like this is that it *cannot* tell you what the single cause of homosexuality is. Rather, it can indicate certain things like an absent father makes you twice as likely to self-identify as homosexual (I don't know if this figure is true - I'm just creating an example). If the base probability of being homosexual is 1%, all this tells you is that those men with absent fathers still only have a 2% chance, but it's still double the rate for everyone else.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Peter Ould
Well, yes, plus the obvious point that lots of people have absent fathers! And lots of them are not gay. I think it was a case of post-rationalization by the psychoanalytic profession; I mean that they refused to look at their own assumptions, and they actually followed very illogical lines of thought. Probably, they wanted/needed to pathologize gays, (as a kind of unconscious defence of patriarchal norms), and then found a theoretical way of doing it. Does this remind you of anybody?
You then have to do qualitative research to answer the "why" question. It could be that the lack of a father feminises the gay man. It could be that the boy who grows up with "gay" characteristics (whatever those are) alienates his father who decides not to hang around with this "poofy" lad! It could be that absent fathers are not themselves a causal issue but are correlated with something that is.
There is a large body of psychological research data looking at parental relationships and to disregard the bits you don't like because they don't fit your paradigm is a dangerous path to take in the name of objectivity.
quote:Are you not into Irish cream?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:I know that name, but not with positive conitations...
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Bailey
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:No, that's Mr S-M: coffee and Bailey's is not a treat for him, it's a weekly stable food group!
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:Are you not into Irish cream?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:I know that name, but not with positive conitations...
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Bailey
quote:I remember now why I have no positive connotations with Bailey - 'occassional' (being nice today) shoddy academia where evidence that contradicts his conclusions are ignored, no smoke without fire allegations, and a worrying interest in eugenics and a common proponent that homosexuality is an 'evolutionary mistake' (link back to the comment before...)
And if we could somehow discover the combination of things that "makes" someone gay? What then? If there is a genetic element, are anti-gay people going to request that genetic screening be put in place to test for this? And if a certain combination of events is seen as a trigger, so what? The only reason for knowing this would be if you wanted to provide therapy to "cure" this "flaw".
quote:Great example, Oscar, and I'd like to add to it. Introverts are often judged by extroverts to be aloof, superior, detached, uncaring, unemotional, and lots of other things like that. Our abilities and contributions are often ignored or unappreciated because we don't blow our own horns constantly. We're told we're lacking in social skills. We're not. We're just introverted, and extroverted people project all sorts of things onto that. Kind of like straight people project their sexual anxieties onto queer people.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
... Let me approach this in a different way. I am an introvert. That is undeniable. Do I care if this is due to genetics or environmental factors? Not one iota. Because being an introvert is not a "flaw". I don't think that being extrovert would be a better thing for me and I will challenge anyone who tries to give that impression. I will certainly have no time for anyone who suggests that I can be "cured" of my introvert nature, by genetic manipulation or by therapy to reverse what has caused this in me.
What I need, as an introvert, is to know who I am and to be who I am and not try to be something I am not. Nor should I let other people try and force me to be something I am not. I am an introvert. I have to learn how to work within the parameters/limitations of this aspect of my personality. In being an introvert, I am not better nor worse than an extrovert. ...
quote:That sentence made me smile! I remeber looking for school projects at the posters that were about back in the day talking about the 'gay agenda' and mysteriously turning kid's gay... although looking at some pictures from google to find the examples to show I was 'surprised' to find that they still do the rounds at modern demonstrations...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I thing the reason some people are obsessed with the so-called "causes" of homosexuality is simply that they are freaked out fearful that they or someone they care about will be turned gay.
quote:I have been called an introvert by some people, and an extrovert by some other people. Which group of people should I believe? Neither - it's just about the particular 'mix' of people of which I happen to be a part of, at any one time.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
What I need, as an introvert, is to know who I am and to be who I am and not try to be something I am not. Nor should I let other people try and force me to be something I am not.
quote:Could someone enlighten me as to what those associated behaviours would be, in the case of a 7 or 8 year old ... I had not the faintest idea or view about sex at that age - It would have been on the same plane as other adult, 'not for me' stuff, like the realtive merits of different brands of Malt Whiskey - ie, 'I just don't know what you are talking about'.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:I don't want to in any way discount your son's experience, self-identity and your relationship with him, but is it worth us asking the question *how* do you know he was always gay? Yes, you could see things in from age 7/8 and this is a very common observation, but strictly all that means is that from that age he was evidencing behaviours and preferences associated with a homosexual orientation. However, that 7/8+ experience doesn't tell us *why* he had those behaviours then (and now). The issue of causality cannot be argued from such a basis. His homosexuality could by biologically based but it might also be environmentally based at an earlier point then the 7/8 years old milestone you refer to (or a mix of biology / environment).
Originally posted by Solly:
As the parent of a much loved gay son, I can assure you he has always been gay - no question of choice. Looking back, I can trace his journey from the age of seven or eight and was well aware of his orientation before he came out. He had years of lonliness before he gave in - and it is so good to see him happy and fulfilled. I have no interest in what he and his partner get up to in bed any more than I have any interest in what my heterosexual children get up to. The churches' attitude to homosexuality disgusts me: one cannot help but think people who take such a close and unnecessary interest in homosexual sexual activity must have doubts about their own sexuality.
quote:I imagine, in the same way that personality profiling works, there are characteristics that would make someone consider that the person they were profiling might turn out a certain way, even if the individual themselves is not aware that they may turn out to be a psychopath/arsonist/etc./etc./...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I had not the faintest idea or view about sex at that age - It would have been on the same plane as other adult, 'not for me' stuff, like the realtive merits of different brands of Malt Whiskey - ie, 'I just don't know what you are talking about'.
quote:Ermm, yes! Though not in so many words, of course. In fact, I was recommending to a son of a friend of mine the other day that he 'starts with the ugly ones' - easier to bed, so good experience ahead of having a proper relationship, and they'll be grateful, to boot - Everyone's a winner (I also found that I lasted longer with those I wasn't too attracted to - which is a bonus, if sort-of annoying at the same time!).
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:What on earth do you mean, it doesn't tell you very much? ...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:Ermm, it does count as an experience - albeit one that doesn't tell you very much, until tested in practice.
So why does my arousal at the sight/thought of men, but my lack of arousal at the sight/thought of women, not count as an 'experience'? ...
In your wild youth, did you go up to girls and say "hey baby, I don't find you nearly as attractive as that other chick over there on the other side of the room, but I've decided YOU'RE the one I want to take home tonight as an interesting experiment"?
quote:Yes, sort of .. although we are close to the same waters here as the person who comes back from a psychic to report on how they knew about their uncle Bob - the correct stuff is remembered and held up later as evidence, and a whole heap of incorrect stuff is simply forgotten.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:I imagine, in the same way that personality profiling works, there are characteristics that would make someone consider that the person they were profiling might turn out a certain way, even if the individual themselves is not aware that they may turn out to be a psychopath/arsonist/etc./etc./...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I had not the faintest idea or view about sex at that age - It would have been on the same plane as other adult, 'not for me' stuff, like the realtive merits of different brands of Malt Whiskey - ie, 'I just don't know what you are talking about'.
Between parents and children that link is going to be much greater (regardless of how the parent may then feel about what they perceive, try and suppress their perceptions, they perceive it).
I'm not saying that it is acurate and that what is perceived will become true, but people can exhibit behaviour that is perceived as something which may then be true...
Am I making sense?
quote:Apart from the obvious moral flaws in your statements, whilst experiementation is a natural part of learning I would not be so proud (?) of giving such advice as you have to people... if your advice had been to have their first experience with someone they had grown to care about then it would be different I guess, but your advice is advocating the use of people as mere objects for experiementation and self-gratification IMHO, not exactly the sort of society that we wish to create surely...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Ermm, yes! Though not in so many words, of course. In fact, I was recommending to a son of a friend of mine the other day that he 'starts with the ugly ones' - easier to bed, so good experience ahead of having a proper relationship, and they'll be grateful, to boot - Everyone's a winner (I also found that I lasted longer with those I wasn't too attracted to - which is a bonus, if sort-of annoying at the same time!).
But apart from other comments already made about the distance between expectations and reality, my use of a porno mag as a teenager only provided me with the very vaguest of ideas about the reality of having an actual person to grapple with - in fact, the first time that a girl came on to me, I ran away!
quote:No, you're right, it's appalling on a moral level, but it just happened to be the only way that I could find of losing my shyness with girls I was really attracted to.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Apart from the obvious moral flaws in your statements, whilst experiementation is a natural part of learning I would not be so proud (?) of giving such advice as you have to people... if your advice had been to have their first experience with someone they had grown to care about then it would be different I guess, but your advice is advocating the use of people as mere objects for experiementation and self-gratification IMHO, not exactly the sort of society that we wish to create surely...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Ermm, yes! Though not in so many words, of course. In fact, I was recommending to a son of a friend of mine the other day that he 'starts with the ugly ones' - easier to bed, so good experience ahead of having a proper relationship, and they'll be grateful, to boot - Everyone's a winner (I also found that I lasted longer with those I wasn't too attracted to - which is a bonus, if sort-of annoying at the same time!).
But apart from other comments already made about the distance between expectations and reality, my use of a porno mag as a teenager only provided me with the very vaguest of ideas about the reality of having an actual person to grapple with - in fact, the first time that a girl came on to me, I ran away!
quote:Very true, hence why I couched my statement with the phrases that I did.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:Yes, sort of .. although we are close to the same waters here as the person who comes back from a psychic to report on how they knew about their uncle Bob - the correct stuff is remembered and held up later as evidence, and a whole heap of incorrect stuff is simply forgotten.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:I imagine, in the same way that personality profiling works, there are characteristics that would make someone consider that the person they were profiling might turn out a certain way, even if the individual themselves is not aware that they may turn out to be a psychopath/arsonist/etc./etc./...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I had not the faintest idea or view about sex at that age - It would have been on the same plane as other adult, 'not for me' stuff, like the realtive merits of different brands of Malt Whiskey - ie, 'I just don't know what you are talking about'.
Between parents and children that link is going to be much greater (regardless of how the parent may then feel about what they perceive, try and suppress their perceptions, they perceive it).
I'm not saying that it is acurate and that what is perceived will become true, but people can exhibit behaviour that is perceived as something which may then be true...
Am I making sense?
quote:Ah, I see. Well, if we're talking about 'hunches', then, yes, I'm cool with that.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Very true, hence why I couched my statement with the phrases that I did.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:Yes, sort of .. although we are close to the same waters here as the person who comes back from a psychic to report on how they knew about their uncle Bob - the correct stuff is remembered and held up later as evidence, and a whole heap of incorrect stuff is simply forgotten.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:I imagine, in the same way that personality profiling works, there are characteristics that would make someone consider that the person they were profiling might turn out a certain way, even if the individual themselves is not aware that they may turn out to be a psychopath/arsonist/etc./etc./...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I had not the faintest idea or view about sex at that age - It would have been on the same plane as other adult, 'not for me' stuff, like the realtive merits of different brands of Malt Whiskey - ie, 'I just don't know what you are talking about'.
Between parents and children that link is going to be much greater (regardless of how the parent may then feel about what they perceive, try and suppress their perceptions, they perceive it).
I'm not saying that it is acurate and that what is perceived will become true, but people can exhibit behaviour that is perceived as something which may then be true...
Am I making sense?
The characteristics perceived were indicative of a state that may come about, whatever miriad of influences that then meant that it became reality would also have an influence (people camp as Christmas who turn out to be straight in comparison to the rather less camp (but still camp) peep who turns out gay) the characteristics that a person exhibits cannot be divorced entirely from their environmental situation - maybe the entire family is camp as christmas, it is just their natural family trait...
It all boils down to me saying, I am quite willing to believe a parent (who si best placed to recognise and interpret their child) when they say that they have an inkling about such and such... my sisters did the same with me ('Finally' was the response when I came out!)
quote:Oh I refuse to judge you for it, I think many people are guilty of doing/thinking something along those lines at somepoint in life if they are honest...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:No, you're right, it's appalling on a moral level, but it just happened to be the only way that I could find of losing my shyness with girls I was really attracted to.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Apart from the obvious moral flaws in your statements, whilst experiementation is a natural part of learning I would not be so proud (?) of giving such advice as you have to people... if your advice had been to have their first experience with someone they had grown to care about then it would be different I guess, but your advice is advocating the use of people as mere objects for experiementation and self-gratification IMHO, not exactly the sort of society that we wish to create surely...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Ermm, yes! Though not in so many words, of course. In fact, I was recommending to a son of a friend of mine the other day that he 'starts with the ugly ones' - easier to bed, so good experience ahead of having a proper relationship, and they'll be grateful, to boot - Everyone's a winner (I also found that I lasted longer with those I wasn't too attracted to - which is a bonus, if sort-of annoying at the same time!).
But apart from other comments already made about the distance between expectations and reality, my use of a porno mag as a teenager only provided me with the very vaguest of ideas about the reality of having an actual person to grapple with - in fact, the first time that a girl came on to me, I ran away!
quote:Well there is some research to suggest that those who in adult life self-identify as homosexual demonstrate in childhood atypical gender behaviours. This might be as extreme as a boy wanting to dress up in girls' clothes and play with Barbies, to more simple non-gender conformity like not liking playing with same-sex peers. Of course, the danger is to jump on this description and to assume that gender non-conformity is always an indicator of adult identification as homosexual (it isn't) OR to find some examples of those who self-identify in adulthood as homosexual but didn't display such gender non-conformity as a child as evidence that the theory is baseless. We are talking about behaviour patterns as children that increase the likelihood that an adult will self-identify as homosexual and NOT a direct causal relationship.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:Could someone enlighten me as to what those associated behaviours would be, in the case of a 7 or 8 year old ... I had not the faintest idea or view about sex at that age - It would have been on the same plane as other adult, 'not for me' stuff, like the realtive merits of different brands of Malt Whiskey - ie, 'I just don't know what you are talking about'.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:I don't want to in any way discount your son's experience, self-identity and your relationship with him, but is it worth us asking the question *how* do you know he was always gay? Yes, you could see things in from age 7/8 and this is a very common observation, but strictly all that means is that from that age he was evidencing behaviours and preferences associated with a homosexual orientation. However, that 7/8+ experience doesn't tell us *why* he had those behaviours then (and now). The issue of causality cannot be argued from such a basis. His homosexuality could by biologically based but it might also be environmentally based at an earlier point then the 7/8 years old milestone you refer to (or a mix of biology / environment).
Originally posted by Solly:
As the parent of a much loved gay son, I can assure you he has always been gay - no question of choice. Looking back, I can trace his journey from the age of seven or eight and was well aware of his orientation before he came out. He had years of lonliness before he gave in - and it is so good to see him happy and fulfilled. I have no interest in what he and his partner get up to in bed any more than I have any interest in what my heterosexual children get up to. The churches' attitude to homosexuality disgusts me: one cannot help but think people who take such a close and unnecessary interest in homosexual sexual activity must have doubts about their own sexuality.
quote:I don't think anybody has been advocating that it is a forgone conclusion of a direct causal relationship.
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
We are talking about behaviour patterns as children that increase the likelihood that an adult will self-identify as homosexual and NOT a direct causal relationship.
quote:This too is beautifully put. If it was up to me, it would be the last word on the matter.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:I don't think anybody has been advocating that it is a forgone conclusion ....
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
We are talking about behaviour patterns as children that increase the likelihood that an adult will self-identify as homosexual and NOT a direct causal relationship.
The Church has a problem in that it has gotten bogged down with debating the actual ins and outs (so to say) of what people do with their dangly bits and where they put them rather than seeking to affirm that relationships are a healthy and necessary part of humanity - we have become so concerned that Adam and Steve might put their bits in each other rather than focussing on the mutual support, strength and fellowship which they derive from each other - if straight people would remember why they fell in love with their husbands and wives we might make some headway into the realisation that relationships are just that, about being relational in the same manner that God is relational in and through the Trinity within Himself and with humanity... it is about love and support - some are called to the single celibate life, but I don't see the logical, nor scriptural, jump to decide that all gay people should be single and celibate as well...
