|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Thanks MaryO - that story made me cry. It's the situation my partner and I faced five years ago when she had to have emergency heart surgery. Fortunately we live in NZ, but even so, had she died her parents would have been the ones called, not me. Also fortunately, she survived.
All the contracts in the world don't matter once you're dead unless you're next of kin. I've said it until I'm blue in the face to anti-gay people who say that we can make legal arrangements in the nature of marriage. Powers of attorney, family trusts, contracts, etc., only go so far, and that point is death. Actually, I've said it until I'm blue in the face to queer couples too - many people just don't realise how inflexible the law is.
Its why we got ourselves civil unionised as soon as it was possible last year.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
As requested by Louise, I am shuffling onto this thread in order to continue a discussion which rather mistakenly started up on the 'Living As A Christian Homosexual' thread.
My last post there read:
quote:
Merlin, one question which is really bugging me as I read your posts on this thread: do you understand that there is a difference between experiencing feelings inside yourself and choosing to act on those feelings? Do you realise that experiencing a particular feeling is one thing, but then deciding what course of action to take as a result of the feeling is, by and large, a process which can be distinguished as being separate to the feeling from which it originated?
eta - fiddling with the phrasing, might still not be as clear as I want it though
[ 17. March 2007, 21:35: Message edited by: mountainsnowtiger ]
I would very much like an answer to this question.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
As requested by Louise, I am shuffling onto this thread in order to continue a discussion which rather mistakenly started up on the 'Living As A Christian Homosexual' thread.
My last post there read:
quote:
Merlin, one question which is really bugging me as I read your posts on this thread: do you understand that there is a difference between experiencing feelings inside yourself and choosing to act on those feelings? Do you realise that experiencing a particular feeling is one thing, but then deciding what course of action to take as a result of the feeling is, by and large, a process which can be distinguished as being separate to the feeling from which it originated?
eta - fiddling with the phrasing, might still not be as clear as I want it though
[ 17. March 2007, 21:35: Message edited by: mountainsnowtiger ]
I would very much like an answer to this question.
I am a bit miffed, that after all I have said, you could ask such a question.
Acting on feelings is the core experience of being human and mortal. Consequences are not our choice: they will follow inevitably. If we think things through long and deeply enough, we should be able to anticipate natural consequences. And make the best choices, i.e. bring on the consequences we want to live with. (A lot about the homosexual marriage issue is not considered by either side. And the full consequences cannot be known before the fact, because our culture has never openly accepted gays before; much less allowed for their civil unions to be defined as "marriage" with no differences attached to the word.)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
Our feelings are not a choice. Our actions are a choice.
We do not choose how we feel. We do choose what behaviour results from our feelings.
('Consequences' occur as a result of our actions. They may also be affected by other factors. We can anticipate the consequences of our actions, although we may be more or less accurate in our expectations.)
Merlin, do you really think that we have no choice about our actions and our behaviour? That everything we do is dictated to us by our feelings? That our lives are governed by the spontaneous occurence of emotions and the instantaneous actions resulting from those emotions?
If so, then I think that you and I disagree so fundamentally that we will not be able to have any meaningful further conversation.
(I also think that if this is what you believe you are throwing the concepts of ethics and morality out of the window completely and I would hate to live in a world run by people with your opinions, but that is rather besides the point.)
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Merlin, I apologise for not responding promptly to your request for guidance on where to discuss the questions of sexuality we had come across. This seems to be the right place, so I hope others will forgive me for re-posting my questions from the "new theology of sex" thread. Some of this has already been treated on that thread, but I would like more serious consideration to be given to questions such as attribution and research.
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I'm astounded that you can say with such assurance that "[Bisexuals] are not same-sex attracted". How do you know? What would it be, then, that makes a person able to feel love and desire for someone of the same sex without being attracted to them?
...
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Teufelchen: bisexuals are not homosexuals.
Well, I'll grant you that one. Are you arguing that they are hetereosexuals, though?
quote:
quote:
They are not same-sex attracted and were not set up biologically to be that way at birth (i.e. they have no more choice about what they find biologically attractive than a heterosexual does).
How do you know this? What studies have shown this to be the case? What reputable biologists, sociologists, and sexologists endorse this view?
And if bisexuals are not same-sex attracted, how do you tell them from heterosexuals?
quote:
quote:
So in my view, bisexuals are making sexual choices when they pick partners of either gender.
Despite having no choice as to whom they find attractive? And do you really mean partners of either gender here, or only partners of their own gender?
quote:
quote:
I have no patience for any phony claims that their situation is the same as either hetero or homosexuals, vis-a-vis "I didn't choose to be bisexual."
How do you know those claims to be phony, Merlin? If you don't really know, don't you think it harsh and unfair to describe them as such?
And would it be so terrible if sexuality were partly a matter of choice?
quote:
quote:
If anything about sexual attraction can be claimed to be caused entirely by upbringing and environment, it is bisexuality.
At this point, I can only repeat my request that you back this claim up with some kind of external evidence.
...
Please cite an external source for reference to the 'so-claimed increase in homosexual attraction'.
But above all, please (a) justify your claim that research has indicated, and will prove, that all children are bisexual, and (b) explain how this can possibly be reconciled with this post of yours from the Purg thread:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlinTheMad:
The "split" [between hetero and homo] as you refer to it will always be real. There isn't suddenly or anytime going be some magical influence to change how people are hardwired. Revulsion and antipathy will always be the initial reaction of one "persuasion" for the other, because they are alien to each other.
Please also explain your selective quoting of Henry Troup's post so as to ignore his personal testimony.
Please also justify your unintentionally humourous use of 'bisexualism' and 'homosexualism', as though these sexualities were religions or systems of political belief.
Lastly, please apologise for your repeated linking of bisexuality with bestiality and child sex abuse.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Lastly, please apologise for your repeated linking of bisexuality with bestiality and child sex abuse.
As far as I can tell from his recent posts, Merlin appears to believe that people's actions occur instantaneously as a result of their feelings, and that a person's conscious mind does not exercise any control over their behaviour. He therefore reasons that if one believes that homosexuals and bisexuals do not choose who they are attracted to, then one must also conclude that child sex abusers and murderers are not blameworthy because these people do not choose to experience the strong emotions (sexual attraction to children / anger / etc) which prompt their actions. My posts above are aimed at getting Merlin to clarify his position and at teasing out the huge flaws in his arguments.
(An apology for his linking of bisexuality with child sex abuse and bestiality is, of course, overdue.)
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
....
Merlin, do you really think that we have no choice about our actions and our behaviour? That everything we do is dictated to us by our feelings? That our lives are governed by the spontaneous occurence of emotions and the instantaneous actions resulting from those emotions?
If so, then I think that you and I disagree so fundamentally that we will not be able to have any meaningful further conversation.
(I also think that if this is what you believe you are throwing the concepts of ethics and morality out of the window completely and I would hate to live in a world run by people with your opinions, but that is rather besides the point.)
No. The EXACT opposite. (I am wondering where I may have slipped in a comment, to give you the impression that I consider human action to be an unavoidable, compulsive thing.)
I totally agree (and find a fair amount of resistance), that feelings are not ever a choice: we get what we feel, usually before we are even aware that we ARE feeling something. There it is, and we are blind-sided by it. As we gain experience, we know that certain dynamics trigger emotions. We therefore learn to avoid the triggers to negative emotions, and accentuate the environment that builds our positive emotions: this is the main benefit of effective personal religion.
The consequences of negative emotions not adequately dealt with are not something we can avoid. When we have experienced enough of this, we learn to head it off before a repeat episode threatens to unravel our lives. If we don't, then inner peace becomes impossible.
As we mature and accept the consequences for our choices, we also learn to expect that in others. We teach it to our children, if we don't suck at parenthood that is.
So, feelings and thoughts are not in our power to control -- outside of building an environment which fosters the feelings and thoughts that we value (imperfectly, we have to accept). But what we do with them is supposed to be in our power to control: it is expected. Nobody gets a free ticket to behave badly, based on "I yam what i yam."
As this relates directly to sexual preferences, I lump everyone into the very same boat (Ship of fools, hehe). No gender preferences give a licence to anyone to be promiscuous, lecherous, unfaithful, etc. The very same sexual morals apply to everyone. Society has to define what those moral standards are: and right now, we are trying to apply the Judeo-Christian standard of faithful marriage to everyone, regardless of gender distinctions. If the protagonists of homosexual "specialness" are expecting the heterosexual majority to bend to any special rulings regarding their "click", they will (I hope) be severely disappointed. There should be no specialness where marriage (civil union) is concerned. That's the challenge: getting both sides to see this, in the middle somewhere....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Merlin, I apologise for not responding promptly to your request for guidance on where to discuss the questions of sexuality we had come across. This seems to be the right place, so I hope others will forgive me for re-posting my questions from the "new theology of sex" thread. Some of this has already been treated on that thread, but I would like more serious consideration to be given to questions such as attribution and research.
....(snip)....
T.
Okay, let me try to make my position clear. (It is to me, so that's the challenge.)
Where I said: "They are not same-sex attracted and were not set up biologically to be that way at birth (i.e. they have no more choice about what they find biologically attractive than a heterosexual does):"
It seems that this was not worded as clearly as I would have liked. What I mean is, "they", homosexuals, claim to have no choice. But any such claim by bisexuals cannot stand on the same footing as the so-called "sex gene" which creates a person to be genuinely homo or heterosexual. Bisexuality must remain largely a function of environment, i.e. upbringing. (If the theory, that bisexuality is the norm for babies, is ever accepted: then the corollary has to be that any surviving bisexuality in individuals is the result of a "failure" of their society to make them either heterosexual -- always the majority -- or homosexual, which may also be determined to a large degree by some aberation of nature: I do not use the word "aberation" derogatorily, in this case, but merely as meaning out of the ordinary and very rare.)
You ask: "How do you know this? What studies have shown this to be the case? What reputable biologists, sociologists, and sexologists endorse this view?"
I do not read research papers for fun. But a very intelligent friend of mine does. Over the years this same friend has commented on the debate going on (picking my interest in it up; because originally, I was not interested in the subject of sexuality as a study, and only focused on it at all when it became a current events issue), and indicated by what he has read that research shows no such "sex gene" as is being sought. I know of nothing to refute this position: ergo, there cannot possibly (except in very rare cases where an aberation of nature is going on) be a biological predisposition at birth to either homosexuality or heterosexuality, but both extremes of development come with upbringing. This forms the basis of "my" theory: that research into sexual development, as it relates to genetic biological predisposition, will show that babies are overwhelmingly genderless in their natural attraction, i.e. bisexual. Bis who remain as such into adulthood, are the rare (fluctuating) demographic which did not get strong enough sexual programing from their environment growing up, to be powerful heterosexuals. The same could then be said about genuine homosexuals (those actually repelled by thoughts of having sex with the opposite gender): they were "grown" from their infantile bisexuality into homosexuals. But this is actually so rare, as to make me believe (as a hypothesis) that genuine homosexuality (that is, aversion toward sexual relations with the opposite gender) is an aberation of nature (similar to, but far more common than, hermaphroditism being viewed as "not natural": perhaps it should be more correctly viewed as extremely rare -- special even -- and not as something that should automatically be corrected by surgery).
When I said: "I have no patience for any phony claims that their situation is the same as either hetero or homosexuals, vis-a-vis "I didn't choose to be bisexual."" I am addressing those who claim that their sexual behavior is uncontrollable, not their attractions. So I am not being unkind, because I lump all of us together. What we find attractive is not a special licence to indulge without consideration. And it is that segment that I was addressing when I said that. It was not as clearly separated as it should have been.
You say: "Please cite an external source for reference to the 'so-claimed increase in homosexual attraction'."
I don't know which research paper(s) detail this. But I had it confirmed by my above-mentioned learned friend only last week. Before I could even frame my comments fully, he answered my request to add to the understanding I already have: that homosexual behavior is related to population (as studies of animal populations exhibiting homosexuality have shown): that our modern world being overpopulated has tended toward the increase of homosexual behavior as a "natural form of birth control", was what my friend added to the conversation.
Addressing your points:
"(a) justify your claim that research has indicated, and will prove, that all children are bisexual,..." I mean to say, that it is my expectation, that research will show this to be true: not that it has gone there yet.
"...and (b) explain how this can possibly be reconciled with this post of yours from the Purg thread:
quote:
The "split" [between hetero and homo] as you refer to it will always be real. There isn't suddenly or anytime going be some magical influence to change how people are hardwired. Revulsion and antipathy will always be the initial reaction of one "persuasion" for the other, because they are alien to each other."
The "split" I refer to is the divide between the heterosexual majority and the homosexual community, including their friends who are heteros. We align ourselves initially, instinctively, based on our initial reactions to the presence of the opposite persuasion.
A revulsion stems from childhood inculcation of sexual mores, not so much from the biological "feelings" we are capable of. The word "homophobic" refers to the widely-held view, that those (especially men) who are most outspoken against homosexuals are in fact repressed homosexuals themselves. This is probably true to a degree far more often than not: i.e. bisexuality is possible, still, in a far larger portion of the population than most heterosexuals care to admit. Thus, the revulsion (fear).
I cannot speak to a homosexual's feelings on first encountering a knowing heterosexual, and was wrong to lump them together in being revolted irreconcilably to each other. I would expect a "hard-wired" homosexual (revolted by the very thought of having sex with the opposite gender) to so-react, but, they are a small proportion of the "homosexual community" (the great majority of this demographic being more bisexual, if the facts were known).
You say: "Please also justify your unintentionally humourous use of 'bisexualism' and 'homosexualism', as though these sexualities were religions or systems of political belief."
Okay, unintentional it was. But, not so innacurate, really, when you look at how often homosexual behavior and association, is tied in the news to religious affiliations (e.g. Ingham). And how strongly the anti-gays position is shared by political "conservatives", and visa versa.
And lastly: "Lastly, please apologise for your repeated linking of bisexuality with bestiality and child sex abuse."
I did not so link it. I was addressing that if there is really a "sex gene" that is responsible for same-sex attraction (the real thing, not bisexuality), then there has to be a "gene" that is the cause of attractions for camels, corpses and kids. If you are going to allow any licence (special rules) for homosexuals, then the Pandora's box is obviously all the rest of humanity's vagueries, vices and peccadillos masquerading as legitimate expressions of sexual attraction....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MTM:
(I am wondering where I may have slipped in a comment, to give you the impression that I consider human action to be an unavoidable, compulsive thing.)
Try this for starters:
quote:
Originally posted by MTM:
Acting on feelings is the core experience of being human and mortal. Consequences are not our choice: they will follow inevitably.
Furthermore, in the very post where you ask how I have concluded that you think actions are unavoidable and compulsive, you go on to re-inforce that opionion in me. You talk about people learning to avoid environments which trigger their negative emotions. Why? Surely, what people need to do is to learn to deal with their negative emotions appropriately and to avoid letting their negative emotions prompt behaviour which they consider to be wrong. Who on earth can control their life in such a way as to avoid negative emotions? Shit happens. Negative emotions happen. It's how we deal with them that counts.
Finally - could you please provide reference to a point when anybody on this board has argued that homosexuals or bisexuals should be granted special treatment or special licence? AFAICT, non-heterosexuals just want the same treatment as everybody else - they want to be respected as worthwhile human beings; they want their relationships to be respected as loving, caring unions; if two of them make a life-long comittment to each other, they want to be granted the same priviledges which are granted to a man and a woman who commit to each other for life. When or where has anybody suggested that homosexuals or bisexuals should be granted special licence for promiscuity? That is not what the discussion is about.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
MerlintheMad in Purg on March 12:
You seem to think that quoting Rodgers and Hammerstein proves that we only learn this crap. But there really is such a thing as natural revulsion; else there would not be any fertile ground in which to breed prejudices.
quote:
MerlintheMad in Dead Horses on March 19:
A revulsion stems from childhood inculcation of sexual mores, not so much from the biological "feelings" we are capable of.
OK, so what is the origin of homophobia? OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This forms the basis of "my" theory: that research into sexual development, as it relates to genetic biological predisposition, will show that babies are overwhelmingly genderless in their natural attraction, i.e. bisexual.
Woudn't it be more accurate to call this a hypothesis? Saying "Research... will show" strongly suggests that no research has been done yet. Theories are usually developed from a wide variety of observations and experiments.
...
quote:
I was addressing that if there is really a "sex gene" that is responsible for same-sex attraction (the real thing, not bisexuality), then there has to be a "gene" that is the cause of attractions for camels, corpses and kids.
Is there a gene for being attracted to blondes? Or brunettes? When I hit my thirties, I stopped being attracted to clean-cut Superman types and started going for hairy, scary bikers - did one of my dormant genes suddenly get turned on?
Merlin, extraordinary claims require... well, at least something besides idle speculation. So far, you have not presented any evidence for these claims (and others), other than hearsay (a friend who claims to read research papers). "Prove me wrong" is not supporting your claim. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Okay, I cannot speak to a homosexual's feelings on first encountering a knowing heterosexual, and was wrong to lump them together in being revolted irreconcilably to each other. I would expect a "hard-wired" homosexual (revolted by the very thought of having sex with the opposite gender) to so-react, but, they are a small proportion of the "homosexual community" (the great majority of this demographic being more bisexual, if the facts were known).
Where in hell do you get this stuff?! In my experience of 59 years of Being A Homosexual - perhaps 1%! of the people I have encountered have been - possibly - bi-sexually oriented. Or are you talking about the population in general?
I'd would respectfully suggest you do more listening and less pontificating.
[code fixed]
[ 20. March 2007, 00:24: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Merlin -- using a friend you can't identify who cites research you can't assess or identify doesn't count as evidence -- it leaves us back with "trust me".
I don't.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
(responding to Teufelchen's request: "Lastly, please apologise for your repeated linking of bisexuality with bestiality and child sex abuse."
I did not so link it. I was addressing that if there is really a "sex gene" that is responsible for same-sex attraction (the real thing, not bisexuality), then there has to be a "gene" that is the cause of attractions for camels, corpses and kids. If you are going to allow any licence (special rules) for homosexuals, then the Pandora's box is obviously all the rest of humanity's vagueries, vices and peccadillos masquerading as legitimate expressions of sexual attraction....
And you've done it again. The slippery slope argument is distasteful and dangerous in the best of circumstances--to compare the known committed partnerships of thousands of queer couples to a hypethetical camel-snog goes a bit beyond the pale. (I'm also intrigued by these "special rules" you mention--are these the ones where we get special exemption from the burden of marriage?)
Might I also cite: this little number for its implicit connection of bisexuality and child sexual abuse. I've registered my dissent in less measured words in Hell, but will replay here in Dead Horses: I am a celebate bisexual schoolteacher, and this offends me.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I totally agree (and find a fair amount of resistance), that feelings are not ever a choice:
...
So, feelings and thoughts are not in our power to control
Okay. So you agree that homosexuals and bisexuals do not make a choice about who they are attracted to?
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Where I said: "They are not same-sex attracted and were not set up biologically to be that way at birth (i.e. they have no more choice about what they find biologically attractive than a heterosexual does):"
It seems that this was not worded as clearly as I would have liked. What I mean is, "they", homosexuals, claim to have no choice. But any such claim by bisexuals cannot stand on the same footing as the so-called "sex gene" which creates a person to be genuinely homo or heterosexual. Bisexuality must remain largely a function of environment, i.e. upbringing. (If the theory, that bisexuality is the norm for babies, is ever accepted: then the corollary has to be that any surviving bisexuality in individuals is the result of a "failure" of their society to make them either heterosexual -- always the majority -- or homosexual, which may also be determined to a large degree by some aberation of nature: I do not use the word "aberation" derogatorily, in this case, but merely as meaning out of the ordinary and very rare.)
You say that the claim of bisexuality to be genetically determined 'cannot' stand on the same footing as similar claims for heterosexuality and homosexuality. Personally, I do not see the necessity, and think you should be able to back up such a categorical claim with some kind of coherent argumentation, and preferably evidence.
Also please note that few, if any, of your respondents have made an explicit claim for sexuality to be genetically determined - only that it subjectively (but widely) seems to individuals not to be a matter of choice. You yourself seem to be saying that sexuality is not genetically determined - so why should it be determined in a polar manner?
If society produces our sexuality, why should it do so in a strictly divisive way, rather than by distribution along a continuum?
What, if anything, is the moral or social difficulty with a person for whom gender is not a primary determinant of attraction?
quote:
You ask: "How do you know this? What studies have shown this to be the case? What reputable biologists, sociologists, and sexologists endorse this view?"
I do not read research papers for fun. But a very intelligent friend of mine does.
Can you get him to give you some references to read, and to cite for us? As others have observed, the testimony of an anonymous, absent friend's reading of unnamed, uncited research that none of us have heard of does not really constitute support for your views.
quote:
[This friend has] indicated by what he has read that research shows no such "sex gene" as is being sought. I know of nothing to refute this position: ergo, there cannot possibly (except in very rare cases where an aberation of nature is going on) be a biological predisposition at birth to either homosexuality or heterosexuality, but both extremes of development come with upbringing.
'Cannot possibly' is unjustified in the circumstances. Go and read the recent philosophy of science thread for detailed debate about how research works. The short answer is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The absence of a gene for sexuality in no way implies a strict division on the basis of social factors. Indeed, if we understand genes as being on-or-off, digital features (which is a simplification), it would be more reasonable to expect a rigid division of sexuality if it were based on genes, than if it were not. The absence of genetic determination would be less problematic for any attempted explanation of the diversity of human sexuality.
quote:
This forms the basis of "my" theory: that research into sexual development, as it relates to genetic biological predisposition, will show that babies are overwhelmingly genderless in their natural attraction, i.e. bisexual.
I don't think children are particularly sexual in any nontrivial way at all, Merlin. (I know Freud did work on this topic - I haven't read it, and I'm betting Merlin hasn't either.)
What (ethical) research could be conducted to test a hypothesis about the sexuality of infants, Merlin?
quote:
Bis who remain as such into adulthood, are the rare (fluctuating) demographic which did not get strong enough sexual programing from their environment growing up, to be powerful heterosexuals.
I still don't understand what mechanism 'society' or 'the environment' is supposed to supply, in order to control people's sexuality so strongly.
I'm also to know what statistics you're using to back up your frequent assertion that bisexuality is very rare.
quote:
The same could then be said about genuine homosexuals (those actually repelled by thoughts of having sex with the opposite gender): they were "grown" from their infantile bisexuality into homosexuals. But this is actually so rare, as to make me believe (as a hypothesis) that genuine homosexuality (that is, aversion toward sexual relations with the opposite gender) is an aberation of nature (similar to, but far more common than, hermaphroditism being viewed as "not natural": perhaps it should be more correctly viewed as extremely rare -- special even -- and not as something that should automatically be corrected by surgery).
So homosexuality, like bisexuality, is in your opinion very rare, and an aberration? You seemed to be arguing before that homosexuality was relatively common, and entirely natural, in contradistinction to the great rarity and abnormality of bisexuality. What do you think the relative commonalities of different sexual groups is? What is your basis for this impression?
quote:
When I said: "I have no patience for any phony claims that their situation is the same as either hetero or homosexuals, vis-a-vis "I didn't choose to be bisexual."" I am addressing those who claim that their sexual behavior is uncontrollable, not their attractions. So I am not being unkind, because I lump all of us together. What we find attractive is not a special licence to indulge without consideration. And it is that segment that I was addressing when I said that. It was not as clearly separated as it should have been.
OK, granted. I don't think anyone here is claiming that acting on our attractions is not a matter of genuine choice. And claims to the contrary come as often from heterosexuals as from anyone else.
quote:
You say: "Please cite an external source for reference to the 'so-claimed increase in homosexual attraction'."
I don't know which research paper(s) detail this. But I had it confirmed by my above-mentioned learned friend only last week. Before I could even frame my comments fully, he answered my request to add to the understanding I already have: that homosexual behavior is related to population (as studies of animal populations exhibiting homosexuality have shown): that our modern world being overpopulated has tended toward the increase of homosexual behavior as a "natural form of birth control", was what my friend added to the conversation.
Such a claim is common as an opinion. I'm not aware of it as a scientific conclusion. Can your learned friend supply a reference for us?
quote:
Addressing your points:
"(a) justify your claim that research has indicated, and will prove, that all children are bisexual,..." I mean to say, that it is my expectation, that research will show this to be true: not that it has gone there yet.
On what evidence is your untested theory founded, then?
quote:
"...and (b) explain how this can possibly be reconciled with this post of yours from the Purg thread:
quote:
The "split" [between hetero and homo] as you refer to it will always be real. There isn't suddenly or anytime going be some magical influence to change how people are hardwired. Revulsion and antipathy will always be the initial reaction of one "persuasion" for the other, because they are alien to each other."
The "split" I refer to is the divide between the heterosexual majority and the homosexual community, including their friends who are heteros.
You were referring to this from TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I hate to tell you, but the split between hetero and homo already exists - and not because we're looking for it. It's 100% because straight people can't deal with us. And we're not "alternate" anything, BTW; our partnerships are as good as - and in many cases, better than - heterosexual ones.
That looks like a reference to the social ostracism of people on the basis of their sexuality. The bit about the 'homosexual community' including 'their' heterosexual friends is an interpolation of your own. Mind you, TubaMirum was referring to this gem of yours:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlinTheMad:
All this sort of preaching is going to result in is, a complete split between heterosexual and homosexual (bisexual) dogmatic religions. The alternate lifestyle religions have existed for many years. Their current (growing) voice is unproportionately large.
I've never yet encountered a bisexual church or religion, although I live in hope. Where do you get this claim from?
In any case, you still seem to be claiming that all infants are bisexual, but that either (a) all normal adults are heterosexuals like you or (b) most normal adults are heterosexuals, and the remainder are homosexuals. As discussed above, it's not altogether clear which you mean.
quote:
We align ourselves initially, instinctively, based on our initial reactions to the presence of the opposite persuasion.
A revulsion stems from childhood inculcation of sexual mores, not so much from the biological "feelings" we are capable of. The word "homophobic" refers to the widely-held view, that those (especially men) who are most outspoken against homosexuals are in fact repressed homosexuals themselves.
Does it? Says who? Personally, I think the 'repressed homosexual' stereotype is about as useful as 'self-hating Jew' and other loathsome cliches. 'Homophobic' is a clunky term, but is generally used (including in quasi-legal contexts such as civil service employment rules) to mean anti-gay prejudice and discrimination. It does not carry the indication of repressed homosexuality, and if you read documents on homophobia with the preconception that it does, you will form highly mistaken impressions of the authors' intent.
quote:
This is probably true to a degree far more often than not: i.e. bisexuality is possible, still, in a far larger portion of the population than most heterosexuals care to admit. Thus, the revulsion (fear).
Where does this come from? You have claimed hitherto that bisexuality in adults is a very rare aberration. How can it also be far more common than most heterosexuals care to admit?
quote:
I cannot speak to a homosexual's feelings on first encountering a knowing heterosexual, and was wrong to lump them together in being revolted irreconcilably to each other. I would expect a "hard-wired" homosexual (revolted by the very thought of having sex with the opposite gender) to so-react, but, they are a small proportion of the "homosexual community" (the great majority of this demographic being more bisexual, if the facts were known).
Again, you present a different idea of the relative proportions (and possibilities) of different sexualities. Please clarify what you really think about the distribution of sexualities in the adult population, your understanding of the 'homosexual community', and your basis for both impressions.
Please also justify your progression from a homosexual being revolted by the idea of sex with a heterosexual member of the opposite sex, to being revolted on first encountering one. I find what you have written peculiar.
quote:
You say: "Please also justify your unintentionally humourous use of 'bisexualism' and 'homosexualism', as though these sexualities were religions or systems of political belief."
Okay, unintentional it was. But, not so innacurate, really, when you look at how often homosexual behavior and association, is tied in the news to religious affiliations (e.g. Ingham). And how strongly the anti-gays position is shared by political "conservatives", and visa versa.
Do you genuinely mean to suggest that a political affiliation to improved gay rights is signifcantly correlated with homosexual attraction or practice? Because that is the implication of claiming it is not inaccurate to describe (non-hetero) sexualities as '-isms' in the sense discussed above.
quote:
And lastly: "Lastly, please apologise for your repeated linking of bisexuality with bestiality and child sex abuse."
I did not so link it. I was addressing that if there is really a "sex gene" that is responsible for same-sex attraction (the real thing, not bisexuality), then there has to be a "gene" that is the cause of attractions for camels, corpses and kids. If you are going to allow any licence (special rules) for homosexuals, then the Pandora's box is obviously all the rest of humanity's vagueries, vices and peccadillos masquerading as legitimate expressions of sexual attraction....
I disagree. The paragraph immediately above goes and does it again. If you can't see why, try it again with the realisation that I'm not arguing for genetic predisposition to anything. Here are some other key quotes from your earlier posts, where you make the association without reference to the question genetic predisposition:
quote:
Bisexuals are therefore "made", not a "natural" segment of the population, as is being claimed for homosexuals (same-sex attracted people). If this is not the case, then we are stooping over an opened Pandora's Box: and literally ANY sexual attractions will be equally legitimate, including children, animals and corpses, etc...
quote:
Also, Utah is infamous for its "vice of choice", sexual excesses of all stripes, especially (evidently) sexual child abuse: so I reckon that the number of bisexuals is also quite well represented: yet I still don't know of a single case of bisexuals being married.
Here's another comment of yours which does not seem so enlightened with regard to gay people. Do you want to expand on it for us?
quote:
Originally posted by MerlinTheMad:
I personally do not agree with single adults adopting; and I consider two same-gender adults, no matter how legally bound to each other, as two single adults.
Do you have any evidence for this one, which you also repeated several times over on 'Living as a Christian homosexual'?:
quote:
Incidently, studies also show, that male homosexuals almost never have sex with women. But conversely, lesbians (half? I think the number was) often go both ways; especially during their fertile periods, they want to sleep with men, but the rest of the time they prefer their female friends. This is applicable to the subject of bisexualism, because women bis are very different from men that way.
One more thing: Our 'failure' to rebut your theory is not a failure of any theory any of us might have. It is certainly not any kind of confirmation of your theory. It is a failure of your theory to be couched in terms capable of being addressed systematically.
T.
[ 20. March 2007, 15:42: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
The "slippery slope" argument also fails with respect to gay relationships because relationships between consenting adults cannot be analogized to pedophilic relationships or bestiality. Among other differences, the latter involve a partner that is not capable of consent, and therefore both pedophilia and bestiality inherently involve sexual abuse to a non-consenting partner. Gay adult relationships do not.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Oh, and Merlin, you totally failed to acknowledge, much less apologise, that you wilfully misrepresented Henry's account of his knowledge of chaste bisexuals.
Indeed, you've totally failed to accept the significance of the testimony (including at least two instances of first-hand testimony) that there are a goodly number of chaste bisexuals out there. You've been quite content to slander bisexuals as promiscuous, and ignore evidence to the contrary.
You also assert that those of who know more assorted queer people are choosing from a small pool, and thus our experience of chaste bisexuals is distorted by the small sample size. Yet you are quite happy to claim that bisexuals are all slutty, depsite not knowing any at all yourself. Can't you see the problem with that?
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
quote:
Originally posted by MTM:
(I am wondering where I may have slipped in a comment, to give you the impression that I consider human action to be an unavoidable, compulsive thing.)
Try this for starters:
quote:
Originally posted by MTM:
Acting on feelings is the core experience of being human and mortal. Consequences are not our choice: they will follow inevitably.
Furthermore, in the very post where you ask how I have concluded that you think actions are unavoidable and compulsive, you go on to re-inforce that opionion in me. You talk about people learning to avoid environments which trigger their negative emotions. Why? Surely, what people need to do is to learn to deal with their negative emotions appropriately and to avoid letting their negative emotions prompt behaviour which they consider to be wrong. Who on earth can control their life in such a way as to avoid negative emotions? Shit happens. Negative emotions happen. It's how we deal with them that counts.
Finally - could you please provide reference to a point when anybody on this board has argued that homosexuals or bisexuals should be granted special treatment or special licence? AFAICT, non-heterosexuals just want the same treatment as everybody else - they want to be respected as worthwhile human beings; they want their relationships to be respected as loving, caring unions; if two of them make a life-long comittment to each other, they want to be granted the same priviledges which are granted to a man and a woman who commit to each other for life. When or where has anybody suggested that homosexuals or bisexuals should be granted special licence for promiscuity? That is not what the discussion is about.
Ah. Perhaps you and I are in difficulties getting each other's drift from the written word. That first quote of mine, above, does not refer to compulsive and unavoidable behavior at all: what I meant is, mortality is an experience with feelings, thoughts and decisions, and nobody can get out of that. To call your actions impossible to avoid is waffling, making excuses, crying for special exceptions that bind others to society's expectations of us all. So, to act on your feelings is unavoidable, and the consequences that follow are equally not deniable. Once you act (or refuse to, which in itself is an act), the consequences are also yours to deal with.
I am somewhat amazed, that you call into question the wisdom of a person creating their life environment so that they don't have to deal with situations that they KNOW will trigger negative responses. To deliberately (as a martyr complex) live in an atmosphere of negative influences, is, imho, just plain stupid. There is a little "parable" about this, shortened down it goes like this:
1) I turned down this street, didn't see the open hole in front of me and fell in, breaking both legs.
2) I recovered and went into town again. I was distracted by the store displays, and didn't notice that I turned down the same street. Because I wasn't watching carefully, I fell into the same hole. This time I was able to get away with only one broken leg.
3) I decided that NOT going into town was not an option, so this time I would watch out for that hole. I turned down the street with the hole, and was watching for it. But for some reason, in the darkness and traffic I got confused. I don't have any idea HOW I could fall in three times, but somehow it happened. I broke my other leg, again.
4) In town again, and very wary of holes in the street, I watched carefully. I saw the hole. I went to go around it, but the crowd moved and I got bumped in anyway. This time at least I didn't break anything.
5) Walking through town later, I came to the same street with the hole in it. But now I take a different street.
In reference to THIS BOARD, and homosexuals (bisexuals) wanting special treatment, I never said that I was addressing what anyone said here.
It is a commonly observed fact that many protagonists in favor of homosexuality being accepted in society want the laws to mention THEM specifically: they want special protection for homosexuals. They want to be specifically mentioned in the proposed changes to what defines marriage. They really want to make the laws admit that heterosexuals believe that homosexuals are just as right. (And if they got all of that -- which they never will -- I would be very surprised if they didn't demand legal compensation for all the damages that years of heartache living in heterosexual society has caused them.)
The promiscuity angle relates to excuse-making: where a homosexual protagonist claims that heterosexual society's abuse and persecution, and refusal to grant marriage privileges to homosexuals, is the cause of their being less stable in their sexual relations. It is not an urban myth, that homosexuals go through many more relationships per capita than heterosexuals do. But homosexual protagonists claim that if society is forced to change, and allow equal privilege for homosexuals to live as they prefer, that this reputation for promiscuity will disappear. I have no response to that except, we shall have to wait and see....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
MerlintheMad in Purg on March 12:
You seem to think that quoting Rodgers and Hammerstein proves that we only learn this crap. But there really is such a thing as natural revulsion; else there would not be any fertile ground in which to breed prejudices.
quote:
MerlintheMad in Dead Horses on March 19:
A revulsion stems from childhood inculcation of sexual mores, not so much from the biological "feelings" we are capable of.
OK, so what is the origin of homophobia? OliviaG
THE origin, or what origins? I don't think anybody knows the answers to that yet. But we understand that growing up causes a great deal of our prejudices. In that respect, the Rodgers and Hammerstein lyrics are spot-on. But even as a child, long before you get any sexual mores fixed on you by your parent tapes, et al, the other "tapes" that make up your societal character, you have natural aversions to things that can only be ascribed to biology (and, from a religious, metaphysical perspective, to the soul as "God" created it). I have clear memories of my earliest reactions to the subject of sex; what felt natural and what felt wrong. Unless I have deeply buried experiences that contributed to or created those feelings, they are natural to me from very early childhood. Some I have had to admit are not "right", just what I prefer. Others' mileage varies, a lot.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This forms the basis of "my" theory: that research into sexual development, as it relates to genetic biological predisposition, will show that babies are overwhelmingly genderless in their natural attraction, i.e. bisexual.
Woudn't it be more accurate to call this a hypothesis? Saying "Research... will show" strongly suggests that no research has been done yet. Theories are usually developed from a wide variety of observations and experiments.
...
quote:
I was addressing that if there is really a "sex gene" that is responsible for same-sex attraction (the real thing, not bisexuality), then there has to be a "gene" that is the cause of attractions for camels, corpses and kids.
Is there a gene for being attracted to blondes? Or brunettes? When I hit my thirties, I stopped being attracted to clean-cut Superman types and started going for hairy, scary bikers - did one of my dormant genes suddenly get turned on?
Merlin, extraordinary claims require... well, at least something besides idle speculation. So far, you have not presented any evidence for these claims (and others), other than hearsay (a friend who claims to read research papers). "Prove me wrong" is not supporting your claim. OliviaG
Are my claims extraordinary? Homosexuality and heterosexuality derive from environmental forces (upbringing), and bisexuality is the norm at birth? Hardly extraordinary, given the direction the research is apparantly going. It isn't a hypothesis, because it can be falsified, sooner rather than later, I suspect. I am not suggesting anything weird here (except maybe to a Christian fundie).
Your glib application of sexual attraction changes does not imply a sudden change to the other gender. Therefore it becomes a strawman. If your hairy scary bikers are women, where you were formerly attracted (so you believed, anyway) to Superman, then NO, a dormant gene did not kick in. You have just lately realized that your sexual attractions include bisexuality. I recall years ago, on Dr Laura's program, a guy in his mid-fifty's calling in with his problem: a new (first time ever in his life) sexual relationship with another man. He was even later than you (assuming you are Bi of course), finding out that sexual attraction included his own gender, at least under special circumstances; this could, of course, grow apace from the point of initial experience. But this does not mean that awareness is some dormant gene kicking in.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Okay, I cannot speak to a homosexual's feelings on first encountering a knowing heterosexual, and was wrong to lump them together in being revolted irreconcilably to each other. I would expect a "hard-wired" homosexual (revolted by the very thought of having sex with the opposite gender) to so-react, but, they are a small proportion of the "homosexual community" (the great majority of this demographic being more bisexual, if the facts were known).
Where in hell do you get this stuff?! In my experience of 59 years of Being A Homosexual - perhaps 1%! of the people I have encountered have been - possibly - bi-sexually oriented. Or are you talking about the population in general?
I'd would respectfully suggest you do more listening and less pontificating.
[code fixed]
Who's pontificating? Am I saying "sin sin sin?" I think you misuse the term.
And I can certainly be wrong, about the whole, "babies on the whole are biologically predisposed bisexual at birth", thing. It won't change anything if I am, other than to continue to aggravate the problem of what we can do about less agreeable sexual attractions (such as pedophilia) that are also biologically predisposed: because of there really is some "sex gene", then it is responsible for every sexual attraction that is "irrestible and unalterable." You might hope that I am right about the bisexuality thing. Because then we can determine more easily WHY society is so dominantly heterosexual.
And yes, I mean society at large, is far more bisexual than we care to admit. That is the prime motivator of homophobia.
Are you including lesbians in your "1%"? If so, then I see a problem with my information. I will look into it, and expect you to as well, for your own satisfaction. The research I have heard of says that up to half the lesbians have had sex with men, mostly during their fertile periods. I have earlier said that the same research (collecting data by interviewing homosexuals, so-claimed) shows that almost no male homosexuals swing both ways: but that is untrue about lesbians.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Merlin -- using a friend you can't identify who cites research you can't assess or identify doesn't count as evidence -- it leaves us back with "trust me".
I don't.
John
I am not asking anyone to "trust me." I am inviting anyone here, who KNOWS better, to refute (easily, I should expect) the statements I have made, ostensibly based on research. My friend does not constitute my sole "source." He tends to confirm the views I already have, or correct them. I have found him to be reliable, but not infallible.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Are my claims extraordinary? Homosexuality and heterosexuality derive from environmental forces (upbringing), and bisexuality is the norm at birth?
Yes, they are extraordinary. Perhaps not in your milieu, but, yes, these are extraordinary claims.
Therefore:
quote:
Hardly extraordinary, given the direction the research is apparantly going.
Is it a waste of electrons to ask, yet again, for some citations for this research?
quote:
Your glib application of sexual attraction changes does not imply a sudden change to the other gender. Therefore it becomes a strawman.
Obviously I should have turned on the sarcasm light. Being a camel or a corpse is not a gender either, so your strawman came first. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
(responding to Teufelchen's request: "Lastly, please apologise for your repeated linking of bisexuality with bestiality and child sex abuse."
I did not so link it. I was addressing that if there is really a "sex gene" that is responsible for same-sex attraction (the real thing, not bisexuality), then there has to be a "gene" that is the cause of attractions for camels, corpses and kids. If you are going to allow any licence (special rules) for homosexuals, then the Pandora's box is obviously all the rest of humanity's vagueries, vices and peccadillos masquerading as legitimate expressions of sexual attraction....
And you've done it again. The slippery slope argument is distasteful and dangerous in the best of circumstances--to compare the known committed partnerships of thousands of queer couples to a hypethetical camel-snog goes a bit beyond the pale. (I'm also intrigued by these "special rules" you mention--are these the ones where we get special exemption from the burden of marriage?)
Might I also cite: this little number for its implicit connection of bisexuality and child sexual abuse. I've registered my dissent in less measured words in Hell, but will replay here in Dead Horses: I am a celebate bisexual schoolteacher, and this offends me.
I made no such implication, that child abuse and bisexuality are the same, or somehow connected. I merely offered an individual's view (mine) of how "deviant" sex is in Utah. Yes, bisexuality IS a deviation from the Judeo-Christian norm. Child abuse far more so. But I repeat, they are NOT connected.
"Special rules", as I explained above, refers to the known homosexual protagonist penchant for wanting their full agenda to include special mention in the changes in the laws on marriage, and any others which will get heterosexuals to legally admit that we have been wrong all this time. By so-doing, homosexuals then obtain special protection and definition as a special demographic. The excuse (up to and including now) has been, that homosexual relationships are unstable because of heterosexual society denying them their civil rights: so what else can society expect of homosexuals? Some homosexuals use this proscription of their lives to excuse their failed relationships, and explain their larger number, per capita, than heterosexuals.
(I commend you on being celibate, not that you'd care what I think or feel about hearing that.)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I totally agree (and find a fair amount of resistance), that feelings are not ever a choice:
...
So, feelings and thoughts are not in our power to control
Okay. So you agree that homosexuals and bisexuals do not make a choice about who they are attracted to?
Of course, not WHO; as in, which individual. But a bisexual can calm their lust enough to choose which one they will go with. If they don't, then they are no better than any other libertine, good for nothing except screwing. (If that sounds a mite harsh, it's because I really don't like sex outside of marriage being a widespread thing, and never have.)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You might hope that I am right about the bisexuality thing. Because then we can determine more easily WHY society is so dominantly heterosexual.
Society is so heterosexual because if people don't fuck people of the other sex, we don't get babies. Which isn't very good for the survival of the species.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And yes, I mean society at large, is far more bisexual than we care to admit. That is the prime motivator of homophobia.
Any proof of that? Is society far more racially mixed than we care to admit? And that is the prime motivator for racism? People can worry about being homosexual without anyway being homo or bi (especially teenagers).
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The research I have heard of says that up to half the lesbians have had sex with men, mostly during their fertile periods.
Which probably has more to do with them wanting children, or still being partially in denial. There is far more pressure on women to get a husband and children, than for a man to get a wife and kids.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I have earlier said that the same research (collecting data by interviewing homosexuals, so-claimed) shows that almost no male homosexuals swing both ways: but that is untrue about lesbians.
The research has self-selection bias. Anecdote would have us believe the standard homosexual that swings both ways, is an in the closet married man. Hardly likely to come forward and participate in such a study.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
....
The absence of genetic determination would be less problematic for any attempted explanation of the diversity of human sexuality.
....
Isn't that what I have been proposing theoretically all along (I do believe it is a theory that is testable, not merely a hypothesis)? It would indeed simplfy things enormously, if sexual attraction begins as functionally bisexual at birth, then society "hard wires" the majority to be heterosexual. This is how it has always been in any society where increasing the population is the natural imperative: which it has been world-wide until very modern times. Thus, a heterosexual society views that sexual attraction as the "right" way. Where some societies are more flexible religiously, they tollerate or even accept homosexual behavior. It does not seem to increase more than in a minor way.
quote:
I don't think children are particularly sexual in any nontrivial way at all, Merlin. (I know Freud did work on this topic - I haven't read it, and I'm betting Merlin hasn't either.)
What (ethical) research could be conducted to test a hypothesis about the sexuality of infants, Merlin?
Nope, no Freud here either. I am not sure I understand your meaning of the use of "nontrivial". Are you saying that sexual attraction in children is not trivial? I feel like I am trying to understand an odd use of a double negative.
No research ON children would be required; only the continuing research into genetics, where we discover more and more how the brain and body chemistry affect later development. We are learning what is truly genetic and biological predisposition, and that knowledge will one day give us the power to "tweak" the genetic structure to make us as desirable as we possibly can. So, if the research ends up showing that there is no such thing as a "sex gene" per se, as in sexual attraction determination, the resulting conclusion would be that sexual attraction is not biologically predisposed, except possibly in a few very rare cases.
quote:
I still don't understand what mechanism 'society' or 'the environment' is supposed to supply, in order to control people's sexuality so strongly.
I'm also to know what statistics you're using to back up your frequent assertion that bisexuality is very rare.
It doesn't control sexuality in adults. But it definitely has an impact on what is defined as "sexy." This ends up applying to the great majority within the society: just look at the fashion magazines, etc. Clones of both genders, sell the fashionable things. They don't appeal to the oddballs who find less common sex appeal in different types. Religion, arguably, provides the strongest "mechanism" for defining sexuality; and we both understand that the largest part of it is guilt for "sin", which causes its own raft of problems that are usually kept hidden.
Statistics. I have none immediately at hand. But a homosexual poster above you, who has been that way for "59 years", said no more than 1% of his peers are bisexual. That seems pretty rare to me. So I say, that bisexuality is rarely seen in public; because very few of them seem willing to be seen as playing both sides. Most bisexuals must be like most other people, out to get a meaningful relationship that lasts. The worst thing you can do, if going out with someone, is cheat, and with both genders no less. So, they don't show up much.
quote:
So homosexuality, like bisexuality, is in your opinion very rare, and an aberration? You seemed to be arguing before that homosexuality was relatively common, and entirely natural, in contradistinction to the great rarity and abnormality of bisexuality. What do you think the relative commonalities of different sexual groups is? What is your basis for this impression?
I meant that homosexual behavior is far more common than the actual number of bonafide homosexuals (those that never swing both ways).
I have had homosexuals tell me in years past, that "ten percent of Salt Lake city is gay." I don't believe it. Maybe "ten percent" of the student body and faculty at the University of Utah, are gay. I don't know why they think this.
I have heard that only 1 to 2% of a population are naturally homosexual. That is pretty rare (nothing as rare as hermaphrodites, however, which, if I recall, are on the order of one in a hundred-thousand). This entire population includes both true homosexuals (who never swing both ways) and practicing bisexuals, who appear (at least half the time) to be homosexual. A portion of the remaining 98 to 99% are potentially bisexual. This is the part which increases when population needs to be reduced, i.e. as one of nature's birth controls.
quote:
Such a claim is common as an opinion. I'm not aware of it as a scientific conclusion. Can your learned friend supply a reference for us?
No. He told me that "research is showing (or indicating)," not concluding yet. None of this discussion is based on "conclusion." The research is being done, not finished. We are not even confident about how long we have to go before we can draw some conclusions. Of course it is opinion, but it is based on on-going research and the interim papers that share the findings so far.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing your points:
"(a) justify your claim that research has indicated, and will prove, that all children are bisexual,..." I mean to say, that it is my expectation, that research will show this to be true: not that it has gone there yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On what evidence is your untested theory founded, then?
On the basis of any claim of biological predisposition being equally valid. That lets pedophiles, bestials and necrophiliacs so-claim their sexual preferences as caused by the same hypothetical "sex gene." I can't accept that "conclusion." Ergo, sexual predisposition must be largely bisexual at birth. If it isn't, we are in a heap of trouble. (That's not scientific, I know, but scientific research has been started on far less strong feels of aversion-rejection, than mine.)
quote:
I've never yet encountered a bisexual church or religion, although I live in hope. Where do you get this claim from?
I didn't mean A Bisexual Church, or A Homosexual Church. The split is automatic, and worsened, by the preaching of both sides. It increases the division over sexual preferences; the definition of what is sin. I don't see this ending anytime soon. We already see breakoffs from, splinter groups within, the dominant religions. We see the first efforts at electing "gay" bishops and preachers, etc. This is causing no small division within the Anglican community, for one. The homosexuals and their friends are in effect forming their own "brand" of Anglican worship. It will one day be a separate religious sect. So will Mormons who are not welcomed by the heterosexual majority membership: they will meet by themselves, they and their heterosexual friends who think as they do about sexual preferences being non sinful.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is probably true to a degree far more often than not: i.e. bisexuality is possible, still, in a far larger portion of the population than most heterosexuals care to admit. Thus, the revulsion (fear).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does this come from? You have claimed hitherto that bisexuality in adults is a very rare aberration. How can it also be far more common than most heterosexuals care to admit?
It is latent. If the research on homosexual behavior increasing to help reduce over population is true, then a number of hitherto heterosexuals will discover that sex to them is the imperative before gender of a partner. This can be an unpleasant realization, given the very strong hereditary societal imperatives imposed on us growing up.
I have no idea how large a demographic of practicing bisexuals there can ultimately be. But personally I would be shocked if it ever topped 10%.
That doesn't eliminate a larger proportion who feel occasional twinges of sexual interest/attraction for the same gender, but never act on those rare feelings: this would indicate a weak, latent bisexuality. (Of course, all of this is theoretical, or even hypothetical, positing. YMMV, and mine too, tomorrow.)
quote:
Please also justify your progression from a homosexual being revolted by the idea of sex with a heterosexual member of the opposite sex, to being revolted on first encountering one. I find what you have written peculiar.
Bad choice of wording on my part. Revolted at the mere idea of having sex is far different from being revolted even being in their presence. Only someone socially maladjusted would suffer from the latter. A rarity among the very rare.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say: "Please also justify your unintentionally humourous use of 'bisexualism' and 'homosexualism', as though these sexualities were religions or systems of political belief."
Okay, unintentional it was. But, not so innacurate, really, when you look at how often homosexual behavior and association, is tied in the news to religious affiliations (e.g. Ingham). And how strongly the anti-gays position is shared by political "conservatives", and visa versa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you genuinely mean to suggest that a political affiliation to improved gay rights is signifcantly correlated with homosexual attraction or practice? Because that is the implication of claiming it is not inaccurate to describe (non-hetero) sexualities as '-isms' in the sense discussed above.
Only to homosexual protagonists. Their heterosexual friends of course are attracted to the idea of fair play for one and all. If their sense of fair play drives them to extremes then they can also be associated with an "ism", probably "liberalism."
Don't worry over it. I was merely trying to be humorous, in dismissing my misuse of "ism."
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And lastly: "Lastly, please apologise for your repeated linking of bisexuality with bestiality and child sex abuse."
I did not so link it. I was addressing that if there is really a "sex gene" that is responsible for same-sex attraction (the real thing, not bisexuality), then there has to be a "gene" that is the cause of attractions for camels, corpses and kids. If you are going to allow any licence (special rules) for homosexuals, then the Pandora's box is obviously all the rest of humanity's vagueries, vices and peccadillos masquerading as legitimate expressions of sexual attraction....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. The paragraph immediately above goes and does it again. If you can't see why, try it again with the realisation that I'm not arguing for genetic predisposition to anything. Here are some other key quotes from your earlier posts, where you make the association without reference to the question genetic predisposition:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bisexuals are therefore "made", not a "natural" segment of the population, as is being claimed for homosexuals (same-sex attracted people). If this is not the case, then we are stooping over an opened Pandora's Box: and literally ANY sexual attractions will be equally legitimate, including children, animals and corpses, etc...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, Utah is infamous for its "vice of choice", sexual excesses of all stripes, especially (evidently) sexual child abuse: so I reckon that the number of bisexuals is also quite well represented: yet I still don't know of a single case of bisexuals being married.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see it. I know that I do not link various sexual deviants (from the vast heterosexual norm).
So if I blame the "sex gene" for homosexuality, then I must per force accept other "groups" of sexual deviants (from the vast heterosexual norm) as also legitimate biological predisposition. This I will not do, short of science proving that it is so. (In which case, I will cash in my chips and remove myself to another world: this one will be too distrubing, weird and insane to remain in any longer.}
quote:
Here's another comment of yours which does not seem so enlightened with regard to gay people. Do you want to expand on it for us?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MerlinTheMad:
I personally do not agree with single adults adopting; and I consider two same-gender adults, no matter how legally bound to each other, as two single adults.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I expressed also, before, that that is my personal opinion/feeling. I can never hope to make it "stick" as a revision of the adoption legalities. Society went down the wrong road decades ago, when they allowed single adults to adopt. It should only be allowed into two-parent homes. And my personal feeling is that adoption should only be to heterosexuals.
quote:
Do you have any evidence for this one, which you also repeated several times over on 'Living as a Christian homosexual'?:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidently, studies also show, that male homosexuals almost never have sex with women. But conversely, lesbians (half? I think the number was) often go both ways; especially during their fertile periods, they want to sleep with men, but the rest of the time they prefer their female friends. This is applicable to the subject of bisexualism, because women bis are very different from men that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That directly ties to what my friend shared with me last week. I wonder if he knows the source off the top of his head? I'll ask him tonight, if I don't get distracted and forget.
quote:
One more thing: Our 'failure' to rebut your theory is not a failure of any theory any of us might have. It is certainly not any kind of confirmation of your theory. It is a failure of your theory to be couched in terms capable of being addressed systematically.
I am no scientist. So "systematically" is going to remain a problem. Do try, if you are so inclined. I am always ready to be disabused of my faulty information....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Merlin -- using a friend you can't identify who cites research you can't assess or identify doesn't count as evidence -- it leaves us back with "trust me".
I don't.
John
I am not asking anyone to "trust me." I am inviting anyone here, who KNOWS better, to refute (easily, I should expect) the statements I have made, ostensibly based on research. My friend does not constitute my sole "source." He tends to confirm the views I already have, or correct them. I have found him to be reliable, but not infallible.
No. You are claiming something. You adduce no evidence in its favour -- it's just what you think. WHen challenged, you cite the opinion of an unknown friend with unknown credentials who you claim has done some research. You can't assess his opinion, and you haven't even looked at his evidence. You take his opinion on trust. But you can't give any of us any reason to do the same.
It's up to you to justify your position, especially when it's been challenged. People have, in my opinion, been exceedingly generous to you in treating your opinion as having at least the appearance of something to talk about. But you have so far cited nothing in support of it. WHat's there worth talking about, if you can't give us any evidence in its favour? It's just a baseless personal opinion worth about as much as the idea that the British Royal family is actually a group of giant alien lizards.
What else is there but trust to justify your position?
And it isn't there.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Merlin, I'm wearying of this debate. Rather than go through quoting all the repetitious rambling, I'll simplify:
- Qualifying words like 'deviant' and 'aberration' in a weaselly way doesn't make those words less aggravating to those you are using them to describe.
- A theory presented without evidence cannot be effectively rebutted, so the burden rests with you to provide at least some evidence in support of your claims.
- It does not at all follow that if homosexuality were determined by a gene, all sexual preferences, licit or otherwise, would also be.
- If your friend is not your only source, please cite another.
- You still haven't produced any evidence that the base rate of strict homosexuality is as low as 1%.
- If the base rate of homosexuality is 1%, and bisexuality is approximately capped as 10%, why do you regard bisexuality as the more striking/alarming/unnatural variation?
- Do you have any understanding of how genes work? Your predictions about desirablity suggest a non-standard understanding of biology.
- I feel that your perception of lesbians as 'more bisexual' than gay men may owe more to the popular media than to experience or scientific study.
- By 'nontrivial', I mean that apparent sexual response in children is not indicative of anything.
- Your proposed research on infant sexuality is too broad in scope, lacks a clear null hypothesis, and is not capable of demonstrating the thing you say it is designed to test.
- What evidence do you have the homosexual relationships fail more often than heterosexual ones?
- Have you found any evidence of bisexual promiscuity yet?
- You are opposed to sex outside marriage. You do not regard same-sex couples as anything other than pairs of single people. Doesn't this mean you regard homosexual practice as intrinsically wrong?
- Please provide examples of the political 'homosexual protagonists' you keep talking about, so that we can discuss their views, rather than just your representation of those views.
- Suppose a bisexual marries a member of the opposite sex, who subsequently dies. If the bisexual later forms a stable relationship with a member of their own sex, are they "no better than any other libertine, good for nothing except screwing"? Or do cases like this not exist in Utah?
- Can you show that repressed homosexuality is a motivator of homophobia?
- Can you show that widespread bisexuality is a motivator of homophobia?
- Which of those do you really think causes homophobia? (Or is there a genetic predisposition?)
- Is it so terrible that a person should flirt with or go out with members of both sexes in their quest for a stable relationship?
- If none of your claims are based on scientific conclusions, why are you so adamant?
- Are you going to apologise to Henry for misrepresenting him?
- Are you going to concede the relevance of shipmates' personal knowledge of bisexuals?
I await your response with (muted) interest.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
- Are you going to apologise to Henry for misrepresenting him?
- Are you going to concede the relevance of shipmates' personal knowledge of bisexuals?
I think the Hell call includes that ... but an admission in either place would be evidence of arguing in good faith.
[ 21. March 2007, 14:08: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Are you including lesbians in your "1%"? If so, then I see a problem with my information. I will look into it, and expect you to as well, for your own satisfaction. The research I have heard of says that up to half the lesbians have had sex with men, mostly during their fertile periods.
I can think of a good dozen lesbian friends and acquainances - I'm pretty certain none of them have ever had sex with a guy. One had a boyfriend at one juncture, but realised it wasn't going anywhere before it, ahem, went anywhere.
So that's twelve-nil from my biased little sample. YMMV.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
- Are you going to apologise to Henry for misrepresenting him?
- Are you going to concede the relevance of shipmates' personal knowledge of bisexuals?
I think the Hell call includes that ... but an admission in either place would be evidence of arguing in good faith.
Well, despite misrepresenting individuals and groups pretty freely, Merlin has declined to join the Hell call. I'd still like to see him raise his standard of debate to a usable minimum, though, and this is part of that.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... (nothing as rare as hermaphrodites, however, which, if I recall, are on the order of one in a hundred-thousand).
<tangent>
The preferred term is intersex, and the actual incidence is at least 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. See How common is intersex? OliviaG
</tangent>
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
(I do believe it is a theory that is testable, not merely a hypothesis)? ... I am no scientist. So "systematically" is going to remain a problem. Do try, if you are so inclined. I am always ready to be disabused of my faulty information....
OK, here you go: Scientific Method
quote:
...knowledge will one day give us the power to "tweak" the genetic structure to make us as desirable as we possibly can ...
Wow. Eugenics. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Are you including lesbians in your "1%"? If so, then I see a problem with my information. I will look into it, and expect you to as well, for your own satisfaction. The research I have heard of says that up to half the lesbians have had sex with men, mostly during their fertile periods.
I can think of a good dozen lesbian friends and acquainances - I'm pretty certain none of them have ever had sex with a guy. One had a boyfriend at one juncture, but realised it wasn't going anywhere before it, ahem, went anywhere.
So that's twelve-nil from my biased little sample. YMMV.
I didn't actually take this seriously - this data comes from the say-so of an intelligent friend of Merlin's. Nothing else to attest to its legitimacy.
Surely I am not alone in imagining marauding hordes of highly-sexed lesbians out on the prowl once a month? And of earnest straight boys typing furiously one-handed while praying silently: 'Pick me!Pick me!'?
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I have heard that only 1 to 2% of a population are naturally homosexual.
Then you aren't listening much.
Various studies consistently come up with 5% (not just the discredited kinsey)
Anecdotally, it the various places where i have worked, it's around 5% - and that's only those who are 'out' or who confided in me so there are likely to be more.
In all the different churches to which I have belonged, it's been way over 5% - because I go to liberal catholic churches and they attract gay men because of the ceremonial and the welcoming, non-condemning attitude.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Merlin -- using a friend you can't identify who cites research you can't assess or identify doesn't count as evidence -- it leaves us back with "trust me".
I don't.
John
I am not asking anyone to "trust me." I am inviting anyone here, who KNOWS better, to refute (easily, I should expect) the statements I have made, ostensibly based on research. My friend does not constitute my sole "source." He tends to confirm the views I already have, or correct them. I have found him to be reliable, but not infallible.
No. You are claiming something. You adduce no evidence in its favour -- it's just what you think. WHen challenged, you cite the opinion of an unknown friend with unknown credentials who you claim has done some research. You can't assess his opinion, and you haven't even looked at his evidence. You take his opinion on trust. But you can't give any of us any reason to do the same.
It's up to you to justify your position, especially when it's been challenged. People have, in my opinion, been exceedingly generous to you in treating your opinion as having at least the appearance of something to talk about. But you have so far cited nothing in support of it. WHat's there worth talking about, if you can't give us any evidence in its favour? It's just a baseless personal opinion worth about as much as the idea that the British Royal family is actually a group of giant alien lizards.
What else is there but trust to justify your position?
And it isn't there.
John
Okay. Your analogy about claiming silly stuff is hardly applicable. We are discussing sexuality, homosexuality particularly; not green aliens, or any level of absurdity equal to that.
First off, I am not sure what exactly I am supposed to have up for legitimate consideration?
I have stated that homosexuals and heterosexuals are "made" that way. This is coming into disrepute solely based on the research (quest) for the "sex gene": society claimed forever, that homosexuals are sinners who choose a deviant lifestyle. Homosexuals are claiming that their sexual attractions are no choice of their making. Research is out to prove/disprove that claim. All I am saying is that the research may discover instead, that effectively "everybody's" sexual attractions are not biologically predisposed. (And as I said, if it turns out otherwise, then all sexual attractions will have the same claim on the "sex gene", i.e. will have equal legitimacy as valid and unchosen: that world of acceptance for every and any sexual perversion, I will not live in.)
In addition, I have made a few statements based on the research of others, that has been presented (as far as I know) in many places over a period of time (otherwise I would not have heard of it beyond hearsay: and I don't collect and repeat hearsay: it has to be disseminated by news-worthy sources or I don't pass it on: and I have to accept it as reasonably true to begin with, or I won't pass it on). None of these statements have been radical, but possibly revealing:
specifically, that homosexual men almost never hit on both genders, but something like half of the lesbians either have (or have had) sex with men, usually during their fertile periods. I fail to see the controversy in this, or why anyone would find it objectionable.
I also stated that increased homosexual behavior seems to be tied to the human race in similar ways that studies of over populated animal species have shown them to behave; as a form of birth control: the males continue to create sperm and get it off on anything "fuzzy" that moves (mice). So far, the evidence shows that humans are similar: this doesn't mean that the mice and men are homosexual, but rather bisexual: sex drive is the imperative before considerations of gender. Where is the need to quote sources in this? If you have a disagreement, then you should quote a counter source, proving that this is falacious. Most likely, we would then be able to produce counter sources; because, as I admitted above, there are not as yet any CONCLUSIONS about what homosexuality is caused by.
Also, I have claimed that the evidence supports the theory that bisexual behavior is the better term, than homosexual behavior: by stating that bisexuality is far more common than homosexuality. And that the lack of bisexual behavior is hidden by the natural tendency of human beings to be perceived as trustworthy, i.e. not appear so fickle as to flit from one gender to the other, therefore, Bis appear either as heterosexual or homosexual at any given place and time. Why this should be "outrageous" is puzzling to me. It may be wrong, but hardly something that offends people who either are homosexuals or have friends who are.
One of the main problems dealing with this topic is, that talking about sex, people lie, a lot. And when studying homosexuals, we are dealing with such a small demographic, that large numbers are hard to come by in order to draw any conclusions from statistics. Ergo, we need to always remember that the jury is still out on almost all of this stuff.
If I have made my statements sound like some hard cord conclusions, you have my apology. I frequently come across as more certain of my own (tentative) conclusions than the facts will allow.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
All I am saying is that the research may discover instead, that effectively "everybody's" sexual attractions are not biologically predisposed. (And as I said, if it turns out otherwise, then all sexual attractions will have the same claim on the "sex gene", i.e. will have equal legitimacy as valid and unchosen: that world of acceptance for every and any sexual perversion, I will not live in.)
Merlin:-
Earlier on in this debate, my questions led you to state that you do not believe that our actions are the instantaneous and unchosen product of our feelings. How, then, can you support your assertion that a 'sex gene' determining people's sexual preferences would make valid all possible sexual activities? We cannot judge people's behaviour solely on whether or not they chose to experience the feelings which motivated that behviour. Homosexuals feel attracted to those of their own sex. They can then use their powers of reason to decide whether they think it is morally okay for them to have sexual relationships with people of their own sex. Many people (heterosexual and homosexual) believe that if two adults want to have a caring sexual relationship, then whether those adults are the same sex or different sexes is completely irrelevant. I accept that child sex abusers may have limited or no control over their feelings of sexual attraction to children. However, it is clear that child sex abuse is morally wrong, because it is an abuse of power which causes enormous damage to the abused child. Therefore, people who are sexually attracted to children are under a moral obligation not to act on their feelings.
The morality or otherwise of a person's sexual activities does not depend on whether or not they consciously choose to feel attracted to a certain group of people.
Unless you believe that humans have no power of moral reasoning and no means of controlling the actions dictated to them by their feelings (+ you earlier claimed that this is not your belief), how can you argue that a gene dictating sexual attraction would make all forms of sexual behaviour permissable?
(Note - there are huge other problems in Merlin's arguments, even in the one paragraph I've chosen to quote, I know. I'm trusting that others will pick up and tackle some of these.)
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Are my claims extraordinary?
More like absurd or self-contrdictory.
quote:
Hardly extraordinary, given the direction the research is apparantly going.
No, research ios not going that way.
quote:
It isn't a hypothesis, because it can be falsified, sooner rather than later, I suspect.
That doesn't make sense.
quote:
I am not suggesting anything weird here (except maybe to a Christian fundie).
Yes you are. You are suggesting that sexual attraction is controlled in some way "for the good of the species". That's nothing to do with fundamentalism one way or the other.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Merlin, I'm wearying of this debate. Rather than go through quoting all the repetitious rambling, I'll simplify:
......
I await your response with (muted) interest.
T.
quote:
snipped from the body of Teufelchen's post:
- Qualifying words like 'deviant' and 'aberration' in a weaselly way doesn't make those words less aggravating to those you are using them to describe.
Sorry if my use of certain words offends. One cannot know ahead of time. But perhaps you will take my qualification as sincere?
quote:
A theory presented without evidence cannot be effectively rebutted, so the burden rests with you to provide at least some evidence in support of your claims.
I assume you are talking to the "theory" that bisexuality is the norm at childbirth. I have already stated that it is MY suppostion that this is true. Such a conclusion would satisfy me and my worries a lot. So I hope that it is true. As I am no research scientist, I await the continued news of the findings with (not muted) interest.
quote:
It does not at all follow that if homosexuality were determined by a gene, all sexual preferences, licit or otherwise, would also be.
And it does not follow that if there really is such a thing as a "sex gene", that it would be special to homosexuality and no other sexual attractions. "Ilicit" is such a loaded word. The Axtecs made common use of child prostitutes. I find fully developed 13 year-old girls sexually attractive. It is the LAW which defines "ilicit", not our biological natures.
quote:
If your friend is not your only source, please cite another.
Source for what exactly? Which statement do you object to, that requires that I "prove" it to you?
quote:
You still haven't produced any evidence that the base rate of strict homosexuality is as low as 1%.
And you haven't proven that it is more than 1%. Nobody has, to my knowledge. This gets into the area of "is s/he lying or not?" Homosexuals are a small, "hounded" demographic, so that getting reliable statistics is a challenge. I did say that it is my understanding that 1 to 2% tops is the reasonable likelihood for homosexuals. And I said I would be shocked if the total homosexual behavior demographic were higher than 10%. None of this requires proof. And I still don't see the "debate."
quote:
If the base rate of homosexuality is 1%, and bisexuality is approximately capped as 10%, why do you regard bisexuality as the more striking/alarming/unnatural variation?
I never said I did. I observed that it is the more natural sexuality. And suspect that that is so at birth: that society, which is in the high nintieth percentile Judeo-Christian heterosexual, is what "stamps" each child with their sexual awareness.
quote:
Do you have any understanding of how genes work? Your predictions about desirablity suggest a non-standard understanding of biology.
Not really. I only know that everything is genetic, going back like a family tree to all the possibly manifested traits a person gets from that ancestry. I hear of how we share DNA in the high 99th percentile (iirc) with everything else in the animal kingdom. I am slowly collecting info as we go, by "osmosis" hehe. But hey, if something I say is waaay out there totally wrong, by all means please turn me around.
What I was alluding to specifically is, my understanding of human naure is repelled by things that don't work; things that are ugly, are malformed, etc. What other motivation can genetic tampering have, than to create the perfect super species? Someday? So that means also, sexual attraction. Ergo, the question of exactly WHAT is ideal in sexual attraction comes up at some point. What will science give us? Total smorgasbord of sex, or one specific kind? I find the possible (probable, eventual) answer to that question disturbing.
quote:
I feel that your perception of lesbians as 'more bisexual' than gay men may owe more to the popular media than to experience or scientific study.
Possibly. But that is the blame of NPR, et al, isn't it?
Btw, I asked my friend where he had most recently heard that bit about male homosexuals being far less bisexual than lesbians are, and he said that it was a couple of weeks back on NPR.
quote:
By 'nontrivial', I mean that apparent sexual response in children is not indicative of anything.
So far as we know. Why should children respond "sexually" to anything, unless they are sexually abused first? quote:
Your proposed research on infant sexuality is too broad in scope, lacks a clear null hypothesis, and is not capable of demonstrating the thing you say it is designed to test.
I think that if they prove a "sex gene", that the question of child sexuality will be included; because the question will then be, what can we do to change this?
If there is no "sex gene", and the norm is determined to be bioligical predisposition to bisexuality (or, if the "sex gene" is bisexual in the vast majority of cases), then I fail to see how this doesn't apply directly to children. A null hypothesis is not possible if there is nothing to find, i.e. no "sex gene" to begin with. The research may go nowhere at all. We don't know yet, do we?
quote:
What evidence do you have the homosexual relationships fail more often than heterosexual ones?
Those unreliable sex surveys of homosexuals. I have already recognized the limitations: small demographic, i.e. not enough numbers to get reliable statistics, and, people lie about sex.
quote:
Have you found any evidence of bisexual promiscuity yet?
Just human promiscuity. Why would bisexuals be any different? (Heteros, bis and homosexuals are all exhibiting their sexuality; and I expect a similar proportion are naturally monogomous, reluctant to be promiscuous, or unfaithful. The difference is that homosexuals, especially men, seem to have far more sex partners, if they sleep around at all in the first place.)
quote:
You are opposed to sex outside marriage. You do not regard same-sex couples as anything other than pairs of single people. Doesn't this mean you regard homosexual practice as intrinsically wrong?
Yes. But that's just me. I really think that the best thing for a same-sex attracted person to do is remain celibate for life. I would no doubt think differently if I were so-attracted, so I won't do anything to push my personal feelings onto anyone else. The civil laws should be fair, i.e. they should allow same-sex couples to be united under the same laws as married heterosexuals are.
quote:
Please provide examples of the political 'homosexual protagonists' you keep talking about, so that we can discuss their views, rather than just your representation of those views.
Oh jeezlouise. Aren't there people on this board who already know who these pro gay lobbies are? By name even? And who are the mouthiest protagonists that are famous or infamous, depending on your take on it all)? I didn't expect to discuss anyone's views.
My initial response to the topic was to observe that the two persuasion, pro and anti gay marriage (and ordination, etc.), are not going to unite: or suddenly, or eventually, admit that they have been wrong and go away. There will always be a polarized extreme of belief; and the civil right to disagree and "camp" with your own kind. And here we are....
quote:
Suppose a bisexual marries a member of the opposite sex, who subsequently dies. If the bisexual later forms a stable relationship with a member of their own sex, are they "no better than any other libertine, good for nothing except screwing"? Or do cases like this not exist in Utah?
I bet they do, except that "marriage" of same-sex couples is not recognized as legally binding.
My personal view is, that fidelity to a relationship (keeping your vows to each other) is the same, no matter what the gender mix. I would even go so far as to admit this for polygamous situations. If people keep their "marriage" vows, the world will be a much better place. Same-sex attraction shouldn't significantly, or at all, make any difference to society. Breaking vows is what unravels families.
There is a certain kind of "honesty" in sex for pleasure; if the parties involved go into it with no expectations of each other than mindless sex. But is this okay? It shouldn't be illegal. But is it a good thing? I personally doubt it, a lot. But to reneg on your vows to another, after the fact, is a breach of trust that bleeds over into every other area of societal interaction. A person who doesn't care about keeping faith with a spouse (legal or only recognized between themselves, it doesn't matter), is nobody anyone else can trust either. That's why the same morality has to apply to everyone the same way.
quote:
Can you show that repressed homosexuality is a motivator of homophobia?
It isn't something you can demonstrate. It therefore remains a hypothetical cause in homophobia. And a popular one at that. How do you define "repressed homosexuality?" The book (required HS reading in my day) "A Separate Peace" explored the fear of homosexual attraction between boys. It is real enough. But to what degree is it THE prime motivator in what we glibly call homophobia? (I noticed that someone, not to be named, on the Ship, already threw that title at me a while back.)
quote:
Can you show that widespread bisexuality is a motivator of homophobia?
No. For the same reason; how do you even define homophobia? We can't automatically assign that title to every person who utters an anti gay comment. And besides, there isn't any "widespread bisexuality" to study, is there? If adults are heterosexual, with a portion of the population bearing more or less a capacity toward bisexuality, you still aren't going to get any demographic collected together to study. You need to find that "sex gene", or prove that it doesn't exist, in order to get further with this.
quote:
Which of those do you really think causes homophobia? (Or is there a genetic predisposition?)
Yes to all. To what degree one over another, demographically, who's to say? It is likely a lot more complex that being caused by two or three factors.
quote:
Is it so terrible that a person should flirt with or go out with members of both sexes in their quest for a stable relationship?
I think a person should seek to establish stable relationships that will last for years, or for life. Beyond that, I don't have any intention of expecting my expectations of what is right and wrong to apply to others.
quote:
If none of your claims are based on scientific conclusions, why are you so adamant?
My personality, I guess. I feel more secure being sure of things. I am being steadily disabused of many "certain" things that I have believed as a younger man. This I do know, more than anything else, I do love to be right! (not perceived so necessarily, but actually right) So, I am always searching for the truth.
quote:
Are you going to apologise to Henry for misrepresenting him?
Sorry Henry. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. (which one is Henry? point him out to me....)
quote:
Are you going to concede the relevance of shipmates' personal knowledge of bisexuals?
Yes. I haven't called anyone a liar, or such. I have merely said, that my experience is different; that doesn't mean I disbelieve other's opinions or experiences that differ. (I did quote that 59 year-old homosexual's claim, that "1%" of his associates are bisexual. I take that at face value. But I also tried to explain why that could be.)
[code fixed]
[ 21. March 2007, 21:12: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
This 59 year old queer was only guestimating a percentage from the gay men I know (& that would be hundreds) who might be bi-sexual AFAIK.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
One of the main problems dealing with this topic is, that talking about sex, people lie, a lot.
Which is precisely why the per centage will be higher in real life than in surveys.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Merlin,
We have a UBB practice thread where people can ask for advice and learn to code their posts before posting them to other threads. Please use it to learn how to use the quote function for complicated posts, like the one above which I've just fixed. Preview post will help you check your results.
Occasional mistakes are fine and will be fixed by the hosts but long complicated posts which do not use the normal way of distinguishing quotes from other shipmates are not. They create extra work for hosts and cause difficulties for other shipmates.
Louise
Dead Horses host
[ 22. March 2007, 02:21: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Okay. Your analogy about claiming silly stuff is hardly applicable. We are discussing sexuality, homosexuality particularly; not green aliens, or any level of absurdity equal to that.
Keeping in mind that this is the Internet, and no one is under any obligation to believe what I say, I will lay some of my cards on the table. If San Francisco is the gay Mecca, then Vancouver is Medina. I am not queer myself, but I have many, many queer friends, neighbours and colleagues. My dearest, closest friend in the world is a gay male. Over the years, I have volunteered for a variety of queer groups and events. I've probably been to more gay bars that straight bars, and I've probably seen more gay porn than straight porn.
quote:
First off, I am not sure what exactly I am supposed to have up for legitimate consideration?
I have stated that homosexuals and heterosexuals are "made" that way.
This is contradictory to the testimony of everyone I know, queer or otherwise. Although some people experience a period that is sometimes called "questioning", most gays and lesbians tell me they have always felt gay/lesbian all their lives, from the moment they became aware of their sexuality. So your statement is in direct contradiction to what gays and lesbians have told me about themselves.
quote:
...specifically, that homosexual men almost never hit on both genders, but something like half of the lesbians either have (or have had) sex with men, usually during their fertile periods.
I personally know a few homosexual men who are married or have been married to women, so they must have "hit on" a woman at some point. Some of the lesbians I know have had sex with men at some point in their lives, some have not, but I honestly couldn't guess at the proportion. As for having sex with men during a fertile period - this is so beyond anything I've ever heard of that I'm wondering if you are confusing this somehow with a lesbian couple starting a family with the help of a trusted male friend and a turkey baster?
quote:
...I also stated that increased homosexual behavior seems to be tied to the human race in similar ways that studies of over populated animal species have shown them to behave;
Fine. Cite the animal studies. Do any of them say the results can be extended to human societies? Here is a list of countries ordered by population density. According to you, Monaco should have the highest number of homosexuals per capital, followed closely by Macau and Hong Kong. Is this the case?
quote:
...Also, I have claimed that the evidence supports the theory that bisexual behavior is the better term, than homosexual behavior: by stating that bisexuality is far more common than homosexuality.
Again, in my experience, bis are few and far between. Let me remind you that having had sex with both men and women doesn't necessarily make one bisexual. Sexual orientation is as much about dreams and desires as it is about capacities and acts.
So there it is, Merlin. Pretty much everything you have said in this forum about queer sexuality is contrary to what I have been told over the years, by many, many queer people and by professionals and educators. The claims you are making seem as absurd as me telling you the temple in Salt Lake is orange and has a bar in the northeast corner. OliviaG
ETA: typo
[ 21. March 2007, 21:09: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"marriage" of same-sex couples is not recognized as legally binding.
Oh yes marriage is. No quotes needed -- it's the real thing in content and name -- to get out of it, you have to get divorced. Here in Canada, in Spain, in a couple of other countries. And the status without the name is recognized in the UK and a bunch of other countries as well.
Not in the US -- oops, forgot Massachusetts (?) -- but that's rather different, at least on an international board.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I have heard that only 1 to 2% of a population are naturally homosexual.
Then you aren't listening much.
Various studies consistently come up with 5% (not just the discredited kinsey)
Anecdotally, it the various places where i have worked, it's around 5% - and that's only those who are 'out' or who confided in me so there are likely to be more.
In all the different churches to which I have belonged, it's been way over 5% - because I go to liberal catholic churches and they attract gay men because of the ceremonial and the welcoming, non-condemning attitude.
I don't have a problem with 5% in "studies." That would be well within a variable allowing for bisexuals behaving as, even identifying with, homosexuals. I wonder if Bis don't tend to think of themselves as anything but homosexuals with an odd streak; they must lean more one way or the other in at least two-thirds of the cases, with the ambivalent ones where they naturally fall, in the middle, liking both genders indiscriminately.
Where I live, and where I have worked, the number "out in the open" has increased over the years. It used to be way small. Now it could amount to 5% or thereabouts, in some neighborhoods. Keeping in mind, that Utah is not up to speed socially as far as changing trends in the nation at large go, there are large segments of society that will thoroughly discourage any "out in the open" behavior.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
- Are you going to apologise to Henry for misrepresenting him?
- Are you going to concede the relevance of shipmates' personal knowledge of bisexuals?
I think the Hell call includes that ... but an admission in either place would be evidence of arguing in good faith.
Oh, you're that Henry. I read these posts one at a time, usually sequentially, but somehow I missed yours right after teufelchen's.
I do apologize if I misrepresented you. I never want to misrepresent what anyone says. And I have never called anyone's veracity into question. Not so far anyways, not having seen a blatant reason for needing to.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... (nothing as rare as hermaphrodites, however, which, if I recall, are on the order of one in a hundred-thousand).
<tangent>
The preferred term is intersex, and the actual incidence is at least 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. See How common is intersex? OliviaG
</tangent>
I must have been misremembering a statistic for fully functioning "intersex", i.e. where both sets of genitalia seem equally formed and usable. So, one in c. 1,000 births are very noticeable intersex cases, and the very well developed (functional) intersex cases are a hundred times more rare than that?
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
.................(snip)
Unless you believe that humans have no power of moral reasoning and no means of controlling the actions dictated to them by their feelings (+ you earlier claimed that this is not your belief), how can you argue that a gene dictating sexual attraction would make all forms of sexual behaviour permissable?
(Note - there are huge other problems in Merlin's arguments, even in the one paragraph I've chosen to quote, I know. I'm trusting that others will pick up and tackle some of these.)
I FEAR such a conclusion, if a so-called "sex gene" is produced, that accounts for the sexual attractions that people feel. If by then, homosexuals have achieved parity with heterosexuals in our society, have their marriages and other legal civil rights equal to heteros: then those deviants (and I do not qualify the term for them) will be encouraged to fight for their rights. God knows, that they have plenty of historical precedent to base their claims on! Greek pederasty, anyone? And I have already mentioned the Aztec version of child prostitution. Child prostitution exists in many places today. So be prepared to defend your version of Morality.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
