Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
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.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:


......snip

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

---

That's a good post. Very concise. Thanks.

I don't see my views that far out there. That's because in my mind, all of this is very much undetermined by ANYONE. We all have our own experiences, especially where we live. The collected aggragate of them would point to something like accuracy, but how do we make it organized and scientific? A collection of anecdotes isn't going anywhere.

When I said homosexuals are "made", I was referring to them IF the theory that babies are born bisexual is true in the high 90th percentile. I am aware that the skuttlebutt these days refutes the glib heterosexual (Judeo-Christian) caveat, that homosexuals are just trying to justify their "sin." My own church has a "Proclamation on the Family", which positively denies any such claim that homosexuals are naturally born that way: it states that gender is ordained of God. And the LDS Social services program tries to rehabilitate homosexuals by getting them to renounce all such friendships and marry heterosexually as part of their "repentance process." As far as I have heard, such programs ultimately end in failure to a greater or lesser degree: and a lot of misery for the homosexual living in what to him/her is an alien environment.

The observation on lesbians tending to sleep with men (if at all, of course) during their fertile periods, was, as far as my friend can recall, part of an NPR program a couple of weeks back. For what that's worth. ("turkey baster", ::snerk:: )

Do I really have to cite the animal studies? Is this in doubt? I am making no claims on the application, as yet, to human beings. As far as I have heard up to this point, no conclusions have been made. This is all very on-going. And no, heavy populations in various parts of the globe won't necessarily "trigger" such an increase in bisexual behavior (I prefer to call it that, rather than homosexual behavior, as I did earlier: I think bisexual is more accurate: mice, humping anything that moves, are not homosexual mice, because the next time it is a female, then a male again: bisexual.) But a perceived world over population could. That's the theory anyway.

I don't know how else you would define bisexual, than as a willingness to have sex with either gender. Frequency of sex, and changing partner genders, would be a scale establishing thing, but would not change the definition.

Btw, the Salt Lake temple IS orange during violent sunsets. And although there isn't a bar (that I know of ) in the basement: the former Hotel Utah (now the Joseph Smith memorial building) used to have a bar in the basement: it was put there to help pay for the construction costs.

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

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

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
Merlin you're muddying the waters unnecessarily. Children are not able to knowingly consent to sexual acts. Normally-functioning adults are. It doesn't really take a whole plethora of "different moralities." It really boils down to:

1. Let consenting adults choose what to do;
2. Try to enforce your religion on people who are not members of your religion.

I think #2 is far more sinful than anything under the sheets that #1 might lead to.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

The observation on lesbians tending to sleep with men (if at all, of course) during their fertile periods, was, as far as my friend can recall, part of an NPR program a couple of weeks back. For what that's worth. ("turkey baster", ::snerk:: )

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Sorry Henry. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. (which one is Henry? point him out to me....)

...

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. [Empahsis mine - T]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

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:

---

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:

---

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?

---

• Bisexuality is more common than strict homosexuality.
• Half of all lesbians seek out males to mate with during the peak of their monthly fertility cycle.
• There are vocal gay activists claiming that sexuality is determined by a gene.
• Bisexuals are promiscuous.

quote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

A null hypothesis is not possible if there is nothing to find, i.e. no "sex gene" to begin with.

---

quote:

---

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:

---

So in my view, bisexuals are making sexual choices when they pick partners of either gender. As most (I am tempted to say ALL, but will allow that there are possibly a few exceptions) bisexuals are not known for their sexual fidelity, 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."

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

The book (required HS reading in my day) "A Separate Peace" explored the fear of homosexual attraction between boys.

---

quote:

---

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:

---

You need to find that "sex gene", or prove that it doesn't exist, in order to get further with this.

---

quote:

---

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.)

---

quote:

---

I doubt your use of "a lot." We tend to exaggerate to make points, it is human. As I cannot think of a single instance of a married couple that I KNOW is bisexual, I have to wonder who all these people around me under the same rock are?!

What is your definition of "faithfully married" then? I know of a couple who are sexually promiscuous: she sleeps around, he sleeps around, and both are okay with that. Is this your definition of "faithfully married?" It aint mine. Marriage "vows" of fidelity mean nothing in a relationship like that.

---

quote:

---

Where is this rock I live under? I am surrounded by hundreds of thousands of married people, and I can't think of ONE couple that I know is bisexual. Are we communicating from different hemispheres, or worlds even??

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Sorry Henry. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. (which one is Henry? point him out to me....)

...

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. [Empahsis mine - T]

---

Either you don't remember, or you're being wilfully awkward here. You should remember who Henry is, and how you misrepresented him, because I've already pointed several times to this post of Henry's where he describes a bisexual of his acquaintance, and this post of yours in response where you sarcastically accuse him of not citing personal experience.

Conditional apologies stink, Merlin.

Your disingenuous manner is beginning to irk me. Of course you know that the words 'deviant' and 'aberration' are offensive, or you would qualify them as you do.

T.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad (prev. page, toward the bottom):
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I don't know how else you would define bisexual, than as a willingness to have sex with either gender. Frequency of sex, and changing partner genders, would be a scale establishing thing, but would not change the definition.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I must have been misremembering a statistic for fully functioning "intersex", i.e. where both sets of genitalia seem equally formed and usable.

---

You know, Merlin, if you are truly interested in the topic of intersex, there's lots information out there that's readily available. (Which makes me wonder why I'm doing all the research. )

Here's some basic information on genital development:
Sick Kids - Child Physiology
And here's a reference to what you are, in your own words, misremembering:
True Hermaphroditism and Mixed Gonadal Dysgenesis in Young Children: A Clinicopathologic Study of 10 Cases

quote:

---

...true hermaphroditism (TH) is the rarest form of intersexuality in humans, and the term is applied to an individual who has both well-developed ovarian and testicular tissues...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It is certain that if those who signed the genocide convention knew that the definition of genocide is so elastic that it also protects lesbians and homosexuals, they would have hesitated before signing. In these end times, we will continue to see the manifestations of the wiles of Satan. So-called international laws, conventions and treaties that call for universal obedience may be no more than satanic instruments designed and disguised in such a manner that very few may have the wisdom to decode that they are meant to advance the cause of Satan.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Do I really have to cite the animal studies?

---

quote:

---

Is this in doubt?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm grateful to infinite_monkey for his research on this one. Perhaps a random member of the public claimed it in a phone-in? Or an unqualified person speaking in debate?

---

\\TANGENT BEGINS:
Do not misidentify the gender of infinite_monkey, for we are legion, yet in human form, female.
// TANGENT ENDS.

And thank you for the info on the "gay gene" thing--I was trying to find a link about how it's not that simple, but I'd reached the end of my research capacities.

--------------------
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

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy B:

quote:

---

The research I have heard of says that up to half the lesbians have had sex with men, mostly during their fertile periods.

---

[...]

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!'?

---

Actually it might just be you.

I was thinking that this assertion sits very uneasily with MtM's claim that hetero- and homo- sexual attraction are learned.

If it's right (no evidence that it is, of course) that a significant number of women experience attraction to men at certain stages of their menstrual cycle, and experience attraction to women at all other times, it would suggest that there is a biological basis for at least some manifestations of sexuality, and that they are not simply learned responses.

I think one of MtM's (many) fallacies is the asumption that if a predisposition to be attracted to a particular gender is genetic it is somehow more irrestible and determinative of behaviour than if the desire is socially conditioned, so the mere possibility of an innate (read biological, therefore genetic) sexual orientation profoundly disturbs him.

But that makes no sense - innate biological desires can be as overwhelming or as trivial as socially conditioned desires. The duty to, and possibility of, refraining from acting on desires isn't in the least affected by whether those desires are caused by genetic, social or other factors.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
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....

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
You're basing a lot of your arguments on the following claims:

• Bisexuality is more common than strict homosexuality.
• Half of all lesbians seek out males to mate with during the peak of their monthly fertility cycle.
• There are vocal gay activists claiming that sexuality is determined by a gene.
• Bisexuals are promiscuous.

Some kind of reputable source for even one of these claims, that we could check for ourselves, would be appreciated.

---

quote:

---

Gays said they could "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves." To do this, these reinventors had to clear away one major obstacle. No, they didn't go after the nation's clergy. They targeted the members of a worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself. In 1972 and 1973 they co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association and, through a series of political maneuvers, lies and outright flim-flams, they "cured" homosexuality overnight-by fiat. They got the A.P.A. to say that same-sex sex was "not a disorder." It was merely "a condition"-as neutral as lefthandedness.

....

The media put its immediate blessing on this "research," but we were oversold. Now we are getting reports, even in such gay publications as The Journal of Homosexuality, that the gay-gene studies and the gay-brain studies do not stand up to critical analysis. (The author of one so-called "gay-gene theory" is under investigation by the National Institutes of Health for scientific fraud.)

---

quote:

---

Bisexuality
Males:
Kinsey estimated that nearly 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives (p. 656, Male). 11.6% of white males (ages 20-35) were given a rating of 3 (about equal heterosexual and homosexual experience/response) on the 7-point Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale for this period of their lives (Table 147, p. 651, Male).


Females:
Kinsey found only a very small portion of females with exclusively homosexual histories. He reported that between 6 and 14% of females (ages 20-35) had more than incidental homosexual experience in their histories. (p. 488, Female). 7% of single females (ages 20-35) and 4% of previously married females (ages 20-35) were given a rating of 3 (about equal heterosexual and homosexual experience/response) on the 7-point Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale for this period of their lives.(Table 142, p. 499, Female).

---

quote:

---

Homosexuality:

Kinsey said in both the Male and Female volumes that it was impossible to determine the number of persons who are "homosexual" or "heterosexual". It was only possible to determine behavior at any given time.

---

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.

Where did 'Judaeo-Christian' come from? Can you please, for the love of Pete explain to this baffled mathematician what you are using 'percentile' to mean?

---

quote:

---

And if bisexuality is the more natural sexuality, why have you dedicated so much space to making bisexuals look bad?

---

quote:

---

I find it to be stuff of science fiction, and irrelevant to the main questions here.

Besides, if the super-humans of the future are to be genetically engineered in petri dishes, who will care if they're sexually attractive? Sexual intercourse would be redundant in a culture that could engineer its citizens so completely.

---

quote:

---

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.

I'm grateful to infinite_monkey for his research on this one. Perhaps a random member of the public claimed it in a phone-in? Or an unqualified person speaking in debate?

---

quote:

---

A null hypothesis is not possible if there is nothing to find, i.e. no "sex gene" to begin with.

I don't think you know what 'null hypothesis' means, on this basis.

---

quote:

---

...like you, I don't think sexuality is genetically determined.

---

quote:

---

teuf: Have you found any evidence of bisexual promiscuity yet?

---

quote:

---

Merlin: 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:

---

teuf: Well, I'd like to see some evidence of that, too. But I'd also know how you think it fits with this statement of yours from the original Purg thread:

---

quote:

---

Merlin: So in my view, bisexuals are making sexual choices when they pick partners of either gender. As most (I am tempted to say ALL, but will allow that there are possibly a few exceptions) bisexuals are not known for their sexual fidelity, 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."

---

quote:

---

Please provide examples of the political 'homosexual protagonists' you keep talking about,

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Pardon my ignorance. What is 'HS'?

---

quote:

---

...your challenge to 'a lot' and reference to living under a rock simply leads me to conclude that there are a lot more bisexuals in London than in Salt Lake City.

---

quote:

---

To ToujoursDan's similar claim, you replied:

quote:

---

Where is this rock I live under? I am surrounded by hundreds of thousands of married people, and I can't think of ONE couple that I know is bisexual. Are we communicating from different hemispheres, or worlds even??

---

This is absurd. You obviously don't personally know hundreds of thousands of married couples, so the fact that you can't pick the bisexuals among the people who happen to live in your city is neither here nor there. I, and ToujoursDan, and several others, were referring to people we know well enough that we do discuss their sexualities with one another.

---

quote:

---

....

Oh, and it seems that OliviaG caught you at your game of meaningless apologies here on the Hell thread already. Try sincerity some time.

T.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Otter:

....snip

What you do not have correct, and which is deeply offensive, is the implication that bisexual = willing to hump anything that moves. Some bisexuals choose celibacy. Some choose strict monagomy. Some choose to have one commited partner of each gender. And yes, some bisexuals lie and cheat and some are promiscuous. So are some homosexuals and so are some heterosexuals. The fact of their sexuality is not making them lie/cheat/sleep around.

And, might I add, that it is possible to be a married bisexual having sex with a parter of each gender, and not be cheating on their spouse. Mr. Otter is quite aware of my female partner, has been nothing but encouraging, and cares for her quite deeply himself. I fail to see, therefore, how I am either promiscuous or cheating on either of them.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Do I really have to cite the animal studies?

---

You can't cite them because there are none that show what you claim.

quote:

---

Is this in doubt?

---

No its not in doubt. Your idea that homesexual behaviour becomes more common in order to control the population for the good of the species is wrong. There is no doubt about that.

You should stop saying it because it isn't true. You have no evidence for it because there is no evidence for it.

---

quote:

---

It is therefore possible that while the body and organs of an animal can be a "male," the brain can coincidentally be "female." This extreme reaction to maternal stress even has a very logical and natural purpose. Sensing that a population is under the stress of crowding or poor living conditions, nature provides this hormonal mechanism as a means to limit population growth and thereby reduce the cause of the stress. Homosexual behavior results in less offspring than heterosexual behavior.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
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....

---

Backing up to express confusion (and frustration) with this gross oversimplification of exceedingly complicated genetic issues, research, and lines of debate.

I also have a friend who reads research papers for fun, to whom I sometimes turn when I'm curious about science. She's a professional science writer for a national science agency, and she tends to substantiate her opinions with, well, science. I can send the full article as a PDF if anyone would like.

Her job is to tell clueless but curious folks like myself and others about what research scientists are currently doing and saying, and how their work informs what we now understand about human genetics and behavior--here's what she told me. Most of what is being said scientifically about the genetic underpinnings of human sexual behavior is based on research involving fruit flies. And even in this utterly simple animal (compared to a human), sexual behavior is influenced by multiple genes, which themselves are influenced in their expression by multiple factors.

So not so much with the camel-snog gene as rhetorical device: do you have any other scientific reasons for your arguments against acceptance of non-celebate homosexuals as valid, functioning members of society?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Scientific reasons? No. Societal reasons: the same as for everybody else. Promiscuity = faithlesness. No staying power. No lasting relationships. You can try later, but any earlier promiscuity is sort of like having a piper who needs paying: your "significant other", knowing your promiscuous past, will not be filled with confidence in your pledge of enduring love. So, teaching kids early that marriage is sacred has to apply to homosexuals too (much though the concept of such a "marriage" is alien to my sensibilities: I have to let that go). If everyone would do that much, and society saw a reversal of the failure of marriage and family, I think that the homosexual "question" would disappear as it became part of the common good.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Do I really have to cite the animal studies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken:
You can't cite them because there are none that show what you claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
We aren't supposed to revert to how the ancients lived: the rest of the world is supposed to improve and adopt the moral standards of the "West", brought about by the enlightened laws and government, seen for the first time on this planet, in America: or, are you willing to adopt the sexual practices of the ancients -- alive and "well" in other parts of the world -- and revert back to how mankind has always lived till now, which divides people into masters and slaves?)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:
The only difference between now and a hundred years ago is that women won't put up with it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I see that you are sincerely puzzled, and annoyed, by my way of expressing ideas. So let me try and clear the air a bit.

---

quote:

---

First of all, "promiscuous" needs defining: typically, it means a person who has had an extramarital sexual encounter. And for a bisexual to be promiscuous, s/he would have had to have at least one such sexual encounter with each gender.

---

quote:

---

Here's the first Website I clicked on about the "finding" of the "sex gene." I have no idea if it states anything useful for this discussion. But there's a raft of stuff out there on this theory and the research behind it.

Stanford on "sex gene"

---

quote:

---

"When it comes to sex in more complex organisms, those non-biological influences will undoubtedly be stronger and more varied, and the variety of outcomes is undoubtedly much greater," he said.

---

quote:

---

gay activist sex gene

A search with those words turned up a nice selection of Websites; I picked that one:

---

quote:

---

You will allow, I think, that gay activists in the recent past did in fact push this "sex gene" thing, to show that their same-sex attraction is natural.

---

quote:

---

In America, (Europe at large too), Judeo-Christianity is practiced, admitted as the affiliation of, ninty-plus percent of the population: "high nintieth percentile." And Society is also heterosexual in an even higher percentage, so: "Higher nintieth percentile". I am not bothering with exact figures, because general statistical statements seem adequate to the discussion, and not arguable.

---

quote:

---

I wasn't trying to do that! It seems that making reference to (other) sexual deviants in the same breath as bisexuals/homosexuals is causing emotional confusion here.

---

quote:

---

The same is not true of (other) deviants. The point I am making, in bringing up these deviant sexual groups, is that I am certain that they already have their agendas, arguments and evidence all prepared to fight for their own "civil rights" to their deviant behavior. And if you think it is silly, unfair, cruel and stupid, to state that, after talking about "gay activism", then I think you all are in a dark fantasy world.

---

quote:

---

Those societies are seen in present-day child prostitution and other "acceptable" societal sexual practices.

---

quote:

---

I am HERE, and elsewhere, talking up resistance to that crap. That's why the so-called "sex gene" research, used lately by the "gay movement", has me worried. I am not ready to sit back and say, "It is thoroughly and forever discredited." It could easily take off on other tangental directions, i.e. be proven from another point of view. There are a lot of people, I feel, who would love nothing more, than to discover that all their urges are "natural and God-given", that they don't have to worry anymore about their urges being wrong.

---

quote:

---

Your science fiction is my near future. The world is changing far too fast in too many ways, for me to sit back and contemplate MOST of what we talk about, anymore, as mere science fiction.

Sexual intercourse would indeed, in such a world, be a moral redundancy.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

...like you, I don't think sexuality is genetically determined.

---

Well, that's good then! But I am worried about all the deviants out there who would love it to be true.

---

quote:

---

It has been my understanding, from a lifetime of hearing of the "evils" of homosexuality, that studies revealed that homosexuals (and bisexuals practicing homosexually) were highly unstable in their abilities to maintain lasting relationships.

---

quote:

---

That the AIDS scare confirmed this, because in this country they were the group where AIDS was spreading like a plague.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Please provide examples of the political 'homosexual protagonists' you keep talking about,

---

a gay lobby page

First one I came up with. You can do this for yourself.

---

quote:

---

I do have a friend who was once "married" to her significant other, who got herself artificially inseminated. Their relationship later failed, and my friend and her "ex" now take turns raising "their daughter." (Who is also a friend of my daughter: in church as a younger girl, she would get up and thank Heavenly Father for her "moms".) But as far as I know, my friend plans to never marry and is a single mom, a celibate lesbian (which, in our bishop's view, makes her repentant and therefore a "member in good standing").

---

quote:

---

So "no", they are not acting like a libertine when they seek out a lasting, monogomous relationship. I believe I made that clear before now, somewhere: I consider all of us in the same Ship: we need to be defined by the same morality, and that is monogomy, and no sex outside of "marriage" (by whatever name a civil union is legally recognized).

---

quote:

---

So we cannot compare situations, vis-a-vis "is your situation more indicative of the world at large than mine."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:

I'm also not sure about how promiscuity is being understood here. Are we talking about infidelity? Or serial monogamy? Or is there an element of: "What Gay people do when they go to Bars"?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Otter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:

I'm also not sure about how promiscuity is being understood here. Are we talking about infidelity? Or serial monogamy? Or is there an element of: "What Gay people do when they go to Bars"?

---

I tend to default to the dictionary definition, myself: Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate; indiscriminate is sexual relations; casual; random.

My interpretation of the dictionary definition is that a person can be non-monagomous, without necessarily being promiscuous. I see "casual" and "indiscriminate" as the selectors, which does, admittedly, leave some definite grey area between monogamy and promiscuity.

I can easily come up with a scenario where someone calls themselves monagomous, that others would call promiscuous - some of the bed-hopping I saw in college. People were serially monogamous, but the partnerings didn't last long, and the standards seemed to consist of breathing and attractiveness (right sex, pretty face, right social group, and minimum level of personal hygeine.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Merlin, I appreciate you taking the trouble to supply some external sources to back up your argument. Taking a look at these same sources, however, is rather more informative than you might like it to be.

---

quote:

---

Your arguments just aren't standing up to the light of objective research and lived experiences:...

---

quote:

---

...all we seem to be left with is your prescriptions and descriptions of how homosexuals and other queer folks "ought to be". When, after knocking some holes into another of your theories, what arguments you still had against non-celebate homosexuals as valid, functioning members of society, you conflated "non-celebate" with "promiscuous" and said that society is harmed by these individuals.

---

quote:

---

Yet in previous posts, you've said that marriage and family should not be options for people with same-sex attraction, leaving essentially no room for anything in between "celebate" and "promiscuous". Denying a decent-sized chunk of the human population a fairly significant chunk of the human experience.

---

quote:

---

ETA: Final pedantic parting shot: percentile and percentage are two very different things. You are inadvertently suggesting that all babies are more bisexual than 90 percent of babies, and that all Americans are more Judeo-Christian than 90 percent of Americans.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
First of all, "promiscuous" needs defining: typically, it means a person who has had an extramarital sexual encounter.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Do I really have to cite the animal studies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken:
You can't cite them because there are none that show what you claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html

---

...doesn't support up your earlier claim. You claimed homosexuality had something to do with population density. Nothing on that poorly written page (which is all second hand reporting anyway) backs you up.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
In a long post, there was a lot to address. I may pick up on some of it in more detail tomorrow. But for now, this section leapt out at me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
We aren't supposed to revert to how the ancients lived: the rest of the world is supposed to improve and adopt the moral standards of the "West", brought about by the enlightened laws and government, seen for the first time on this planet, in America: or, are you willing to adopt the sexual practices of the ancients -- alive and "well" in other parts of the world -- and revert back to how mankind has always lived till now, which divides people into masters and slaves?)

---

If we're going to talk of slavery, and of America, look at the calendar. A famous anniversary is being celebrated here in the UK this year.

T.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Slavery, was taken care of later, because the originators of the American constitution could not address it in 1776, or they would have had no united cause to defend. Nobody is claiming that the USA is perfect: it's just the best system of self government, by far, to come out of the combined humman experience of the last c. 6,000 years.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I never said, nor do I believe, that local high human population density results in those places having more homosexuals: I am addressing world-wide population only, which we all know is too high and getting critically so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
What you've described above is an act of adultery.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

I'll try not to be unduly pedantic, but the second sentence here seems to imply that a person who fancies both sexes, but sleeps with lots of members of one sex only, is not promiscuous.

---

quote:

---

However, I am not a fruit fly. This quote from Professor Bruce Baker seems relevant to the current discussion:

quote:

---

"When it comes to sex in more complex organisms, those non-biological influences will undoubtedly be stronger and more varied, and the variety of outcomes is undoubtedly much greater," he said.

---

---

quote:

---

Infinite monkey has already discussed Charles Socarides' credentials in a post above.

---

quote:

---

Larry Kramer is known for speaking out against promiscuity and unsafe sex, and describes gender studies and queer theory as 'incomprehensible gobbledygook'. So he's perhaps not the sort of gay activist you meant.

---

quote:

---

Your quotations from Kinsey are perhaps outdated (and Kinsey's methods have been criticised). However, they do seem to indicate that bisexual practice is reasonably common, and so is more clearly homosexual practice. None of this leads me to think that gayness is (or is not) genetic. Indeed, this looks like a good example of the sort of complexity Professor Baker describes in the quote above.

---

quote:

---

I would like to add that there is no such religion as 'Judaeo-Christianity', and that most western european countries are nothing like 90% Christian or Jewish.

---

quote:

---

It might well be true that such groups exist. The thing here is that I don't think it's important. A legal system founded on true respect for human rights can reasonably expected to support consenting adult homosexual practice and oppose child sex abuse. (A legal system that protected animals and supported respect for the dead would be good too.) I just don't think there is a slippery slope here.

---

quote:

---

MerlintheMa:
; Those societies are seen in present-day child prostitution and other "acceptable" societal sexual practices.

Where is child prostitution acceptable?

---

quote:

---

You still haven't shown us a real example of a gay activist citing the existence of a 'gay gene' in defence of gay rights.

---

quote:

---

I see no sign that we are close to producing genetically engineered humans in the way you describe. I suppose we could produce humans which were incapable of completing the fruit fly mating dance - but how would we know?

---

quote:

---

People are likely to get upset by the use of 'deviant' in a substantive way like this. For an analogy, think of it like referring to an illegal immigrant as 'an illegal'. There, the transition is from referring to an illegally undertaken act to identifying the entire person as illegal. With 'deviant' the transition is from a sex act (or desire) you disapprove of, to describing the entire person with disapproval.

---

quote:

---

My personal experience (which is no more or less valid, by itself) is that gay, straight and bisexual people are all as much or as little promiscuous, and bad at relationships, as one another.

---

quote:

---

The tragic (and highly preventable) spread of HIV does not constitute evidence of instability in homosexual relationships.

---

quote:

---

teufelchen:
Please provide examples of the political 'homosexual protagonists' you keep talking about,

MerlintheMad:
a gay lobby page First one I came up with. You can do this for yourself.

Well, that site is in New South Wales. I was hoping you'd got an American example for me.

---

quote:

---

I'm pleased to learn your bishop has not asked her to repent specifically. (Your church must be very different to mine. I can't imagine anyone just standing up during the service and thanking God aloud for anything.)

---

quote:

---

What I'm trying to work out is whether you think there is any problem with a bisexual person, when setting out to form such a relationship, considering members of both sexes.

---

quote:

---

(Viewzone.com does not appear to be a site hosting reputable scientific research. I would characterise it as a tertiary source, akin to an encyclopedia, and written from a decidedly populist and sensationalist standpoint.)

---

quote:

---

I am sorry, once again, for getting too personal. Louise's reprimand was correct.

T.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Merlin, I appreciate you taking the trouble to supply some external sources to back up your argument. Taking a look at these same sources, however, is rather more informative than you might like it to be.

---

No trouble at all. It took me all of half an hour to open a few Webpages and quickly read enough to at least know that the authors were talking about the subjects. I didn't worry very much of they were close to a majority opinion or "out there." The point I was making by posting the links was, that there is evidence (where some here claimed there was zero, in one case) and sound reasoning behind why people believe what they believe. Just because a majority of opinion may be against them does not mean that they are necessarily wrong; and certainly doesn't mean that they don't have well-thought out reasons why they believe as they do.

---

quote:

---

Your arguments just aren't standing up to the light of objective research and lived experiences:... That sounds rather rhetorical to me. "Lived experiences", what's that supposed to imply? That you have to be queer to "get it?" Or, that you have to have a boatload of queer friends, workmates, and neighbors, to "get it?"

---

quote:

---

You don't think society is harmed by promiscuity? It doesn't matter a bit, if I said it incorrectly. (I often write incorrectly, but appreciate your making it clear to me how I am in error.) You evidently understand what I am trying to communicate.

---

quote:

---

Uncelebate homosexuals, imho, harm society.

---

quote:

---

Legally, I recognize that they should be allowed to cohabit, even "marry" (get civilly united). And all I am saying is that anyone (hetero, homo or deviant sexual) who does not abide by an agreed upon societal moral standard, is living outside of society's expectations.

---

quote:

---

I think that is obvious that promiscuous behavior is wrong and harmful; and any place where homosexuals are allowed to "marry" they should be doing it at once rather than indulging in sex for pleasure and not for bonding relationships.

---

quote:

---

It is too bad, that the vast majority of Judeo-Christians agree, that sex for procreation is the only righteous sexual expression. That is the split that I first addressed on the Ingham thread. Of course, you will want me to back up "vast majority". I can't, anymore than you can refute it. Most people are fence sitters to begin with. This "cause" is still polarizing the majority one way or the other. People who never had to consider the cause of homosexual equal rights now have it in their face, and many are still trying to sit comfortably behind their ages-old tradtional denouncement of homosexuality, vis-a-vis Paul mainly.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I supplied a quick reference to studies that observed this happening in very controlled situations.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I never said, nor do I believe, that local high human population density results in those places having more homosexuals: I am addressing world-wide population only, which we all know is too high and getting critically so.

---

The problem with this backpedal is that while an organism may sense and possibly be affected by local population density, an organism can't sense the total world-wide population of its kind (if at all). In fact, humans are probably the only species on the planet that actually knows (ok, estimates) its total numbers. OliviaG

---

quote:

---

Autopsies showed that the relative size and configuration of this master gland is different in males and females. Further research indicated that the hypothalamus in homosexual men was significantly different from that of "straight" (heterosexual) men (see Science, 253: 1034-1037, 1991).

---

quote:

---

It is therefore possible that while the body and organs of an animal can be a "male," the brain can coincidentally be "female." This extreme reaction to maternal stress even has a very logical and natural purpose. Sensing that a population is under the stress of crowding or poor living conditions, nature provides this hormonal mechanism as a means to limit population growth and thereby reduce the cause of the stress. Homosexual behavior results in less offspring than heterosexual behavior.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:

quote:

---

MerlintheMad:
It is too bad, that the vast majority of Judeo-Christians agree, that sex for procreation is the only righteous sexual expression. That is the split that I first addressed on the Ingham thread. Of course, you will want me to back up "vast majority". I can't, anymore than you can refute it. Most people are fence sitters to begin with. This "cause" is still polarizing the majority one way or the other. People who never had to consider the cause of homosexual equal rights now have it in their face, and many are still trying to sit comfortably behind their ages-old tradtional denouncement of homosexuality, vis-a-vis Paul mainly.

---

And here's where we hit the ultimate brick wall. My advocacy for
full participation of non-celebate homo- and bi-sexuals in society is based on my ability to read that paragraph, put myself back in time 200 years, switch some words around, and get a tidy little defense of slavery or women's non-suffrage. I believe that society will, in time, move past its current obsession with qualifying love by genital contrast. And be the better for it. Others believe that doing so invites the Apocalypse.

---

quote:

---

Given that neither view has been borne out over time, all we've really got is our feelings, our experiences, our faith, and the things from outside that we use to ground those things. I'm curious about whether your view is amenable to change in the light of what others (more clever and more diplomatic than I, I'm afraid) have shared with you over the course of this debate.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I supplied a quick reference to studies that observed this happening in very controlled situations.

---

I couldn't find those in the very long and rambling article you linked to. Can you quote the section?

---

quote:

---

In a paper published almost a quarter of a century ago, a research psychologist at Villanova University was also puzzled about gender. Dr. Ingebog Ward was studying the sexual behavior of rats, years before the role of the hypothalamus was even suspected of gendering human brains. She divided a group of pregnant rats into three groups. Suspecting that something special might be happening in the early stages of pregnancy, she subjected the first group to stress during the first ten days of gestation by irritating the mother rats to bright lights, noise and annoying vibrations. Ten days in a rat's pregnancy corresponds to the first trimester (3 months) of a human pregnancy. The second group was subjected to stress towards the end of their pregnancy, just before birth. The third group was comprised of male offspring from both prenatal stressed mothers and unstressed mothers. These babies were subjected to the same stress producing stimuli.

Dr. Ward then allowed all the males to grow to adulthood without further interference. She then placed each group of males in cages with healthy females to observe if their ability and desire to mate with normal adult females. Here is what happened.


"Abstract: Male rats were exposed to prenatal (i.e. before they were born) or postnatal (after they were born) stress, or both. The prenatally stressed males showed low levels of male copulatory behavior and high rates of female lordotic responding. Postnatal stress had no effect. The modifications are attributed to stress-mediated alterations in the ratio of adrenal to gonadal androgens during critical stages of sexual differentiation. Specifically, it appears that stress causes an increase in the weak adrenal androgen, androstendione, from the maternal fetal adrenal cortices, or both, and a concurrent decrease in the potent gonadal androgen, testosterone."
Parental Stress Feminizes and Demasculizes the Behavior of Males, Science, January 7, 1972 (83-84).




Her findings showed that if a mother is stressed during the early stages of pregnancy, she will release an adrenaline related hormone into her own bloodstream and that of her unborn baby. This hormone, called androstendione, is structurally similar to testosterone, the male hormone. If the baby carries "XY" chromosomes and is destined to become a male, testosterone needs to be active when the Central Nervous System (including the hypothalamus) is being formed. This is the only way that the CNS "knows" to develop along male lines. Because the stress hormone seems to bind to the receptors that would normally be receiving testosterone, there is the delay or blockage of the effectiveness of testosterone, even if it is plentiful.

...

"The resulting alterations in sexual behavior provide the basis for an effective population control mechanism, since offspring so affected would not possess the behavioral repertoire necessary to contribute to population growth. Thus, the environment, by triggering an adrenal stress response, may control the reproductive capacity of successive generations of differentiating fetuses and, thereby, population size."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Admittedly, there is no direct mentioning of over-population being one of the stresses that the pregnant female rats were subjected to.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And stress is stress; over-population is just one of a meriad sources for too much stress on pregnant mothers. I would pick a far more stressful factor, as the prime culprit in increased homosexual behavior: most mothers being compelled to work outside the home. Fewer and fewer mothers are simply home-makers, but must work long hours just to help make ends meet: or worse still, as the sole source of income for single mothers. The increased stress of working while pregnant could be sufficient cause of altered hypothalamus development in the unborn.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Unless you are going to attempt to deal with this, why are you cluttering an already too-long thread with pointless verbiage?

---