Please note this is not intended to offend anyone in anyway it is just put out as general interest for anyone who wants to read it


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crazy Asinine Christians
(Printed in the Towanda Daily Review on May 3, 1999. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor:
Jill Darling's headline article, "From Gay to Straight" (April 27, Review), and in the same paper her column, "Lured Toward Lesbianism", make me wonder about the mission of the Towanda Daily Review to become a serious newspaper. As expected, her columns reflect her own opinions and as such require no balance or factual material. However, a headline report should present all sides of an issue and allow readers to come to their own conclusions rather than to those of a biased reporter.

Yet, this newspaper's editors allowed her to present material based on nothing more than homophobic biases about the conversion of homosexuals to heterosexuality -- despite the fact of the assertions of the American Psychiatric Association; Dr. Bryant Welch, Executive Director for Professsional Practice of the American Psychological Association; and the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is not a disorder, that there is no scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of so-called gay to straight 'reparative therapy', and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so.

Jerry Armelli, the subject of Darling's "report", claims to have been converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality through prayer, religion, and Jesus. He then founded Prodigal Ministries to share his profound insights with others "afflicted" with Biblically incorrect sexual preferences – the "confused" as they are called.

Likewise, I would like to help the confused. As an ordained minister, I founded Crazy Asinine Christians Anonymous, or CACA, to help not all Christians but only the Crazy Asinine ones. To be clear, most Christians don't fall in the Crazy Asinine category, but for those that do, CACA is for you.

How do you know if you're a Crazy Asinine Christian? Answer these simple questions. (1) With total disregard for a vast body of scientific evidence, do you still discount evolution? (2) With total disregard for common sense, do you believe that all the species of the world really fit in that ark? (3) With total disregard for all that is holy, do you think that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson make sense? (4) Do you believe that the male should be the absolute dictator of the family unit? (5) Do you believe that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured, even if the homosexual is a well adjusted content individual?

If you answered "yes" to all of the above questions, then CACA is for you. You can be cured and returned to the world of normal Christianity with reparative therapy. Prior to treatment at CACA, 68% of respondents reported being almost entirely crazy and asinine, with the balance a mix of mostly asinine and somewhat crazy, to mostly crazy and slightly asinine. After treatment, only 67% saw themselves as still entirely crazy and asinine. One-hundred percent of the 1% who were cured believed that the treatment was completely successful. When it comes to reparative therapy, it's all CACA.

John L. Ferri
jlferri@epix.net

Flash,

LOL! Girl, you are truly one mixed up bag of caca yourself. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. :) You just refuse to get it don't you? Why don't you try? Why? You are soooooooooo wrong, I just don't know what else to say to you. Homosexuality is not some damn disease that needs to be cured (though I think that Jerry Falwell may be), it's a choice that one makes that happens to make NO SENSE logically whatsoever. Don't tell me that we're going to have to go through all of this again??????? (We've been debating the whole homosexuality topic all week via e-mail, and of COURSE have gotten no-where.)

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Hey Lori: :p

Smegma-breath. LOL! (wub u) :D

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

hahaha oh well ... :D

better watch the name calling or I'll pick you up by your butt and spit in your ass!!!!!!! LOL

LMAO! Oh no, don't do that!!!!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

LMAO..... I thought you'd see it my way ;)

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited February 05, 2000).]

Last week, I listened to a report on a survey (sorry, I didn't catch the name of it) which revealed the following results:

A recent study of 800 priest and clergy who took the vow of celibacy responded to an anonymous survey regarding sexuality.

When asked, "What is your natural state of sexuality?" nearly 15% responded homosexual, nearly 3% responded bisexual and the rest responded heterosexual.

When asked, "Have you ever engaged in sexual activity (with another individual)?" only 20% of all respondents said yes. It was reported that this affirmative response was "fairly evenly distributed" across the lines of the three classifications of sexuality.

If this report is true, then that would mean that only approximately 29 of the approximate 144 who responded that they were either homosexual or bisexual ever actively participated in a homosexual or bisexual act.

If sexuality is always an active "choice," and if the respondents were being truthful, what then accounts for the reported sexuality of the approximate 115 remaining celibate homosexuals and bisexuals who participated in the study?




[This message has been edited by truestory (edited February 05, 2000).]

What accounts for it? They're lying, that's what accounts for it. Also, there are no women in the priest hood are there? Convenience counts for something here. The reason that I know this is because of an article and news story that was published last week. I'll try to find a link to the story...Report: Priests Dying of AIDS



The Rev. Dennis Rausch celebrates Mass
AP/Rich Sugg [32K]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — Roman Catholic priests in the United States are dying from AIDS-related illnesses at a rate four times higher than the general population and the cause is often concealed on their death certificates, The Kansas City Star reported Sunday.

In the first of a three-part series, the newspaper said death certificates and interviews with experts indicated several hundred priests have died of AIDS-related illnesses since the mid-1980s and hundreds more are living with HIV, the virus that causes the disease.

``I think this speaks to a failure on the part of the church,'' said Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of the Archdiocese of Detroit. ``Gay priests and heterosexual priests didn't know how to handle their sexuality, their sexual drive. And so they would handle it in ways that were not healthy.''

The Star received 801 responses to questionnaires that were sent last fall to 3,000 of the 46,000 priests in the United States. The margin of error of the survey was 3.5 percentage points.

Six of 10 priests responding said they knew of at least one priest who had died of an AIDS-related illness, and one-third knew a priest living with AIDS. Three-fourths said the church needed to provide more education to seminarians on sexual issues.

``How to be celibate and to be gay at the same time, and how to be celibate and heterosexual at the same time, that's what we were never really taught how to do. And that was a major failing,'' Gumbleton said.

Asked about their sexual orientation, 75 percent said they were heterosexual, 15 percent said they were homosexual, and 5 percent said they were bisexual.

The Rev. John Keenan, who runs Trinity House, an outpatient clinic in Chicago for priests, said he believes most priests with AIDS contracted the disease through same-sex relations. He said he treated one priest who had infected eight other priests.

The Star said precise numbers of priests who have died of AIDS or become infected with HIV is unknown, partly because many suffer in solitude. When priests tell their superiors, the cases generally are handled quietly.

The newspaper cited the case of Bishop Emerson Moore, who left the Archdiocese of New York in 1995 and went to Minnesota, where he died in a hospice of an AIDS-related illness. His death certificate attributed the death to ``unknown natural causes'' and listed his occupation as ``laborer'' in the manufacturing industry.

After an AIDS activist filed a complaint, officials changed the cause of death to ``HIV-related illness,'' the Star said, but the occupation was not corrected.

The newspaper said the death rate among priests from AIDS appears to be at least four times that of the rate for the general U.S. population.

Some priests and behavioral experts believe the church has scared priests into silence by treating homosexual acts as an abomination and the breaking of celibacy vows as shameful, the Star said.

Catholic cardinals in the United States and high-ranking church officials in the Vatican declined requests to discuss the newspaper's findings, The Star reported. The Vatican referred questions to local bishops.

Bishop Raymond Boland of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph said the AIDS deaths show that priests are human.

``Much as we would regret it, it shows that human nature is human nature,'' he said. ``And all of us are heirs to all of the misfortunes that can be foisted upon the human race.''


------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,

Thanks. It seems as though the report you posted might include part of the results of the survey which I referenced. I had also heard the report about the incidence of AIDS among Catholic priests being four times higher than that of the general population.

However, the incidents of AIDS is actually spreading much more rapidly in the heterosexual community than the gay community at large.

At any rate, this still does not account for the fact that people can naturally "be" homosexual or bisexual without making an active "choice" to participate in such sexual activity. (Unless you have determined that they are ALL lying?)

Lori,

Perhaps the status of homosexuality would be easier for you to digest if you consider an analogy -- handedness. It is true that a majority of us (something like 80%) are right-handed, and a minority are left-handed. Now, would you think that handedness is a "choice"? If it were, then I'd expect the population to split around 50-50 lines, since there is no inherent advantage to right-hand dominance vs. left-hand dominance. So it doesn't seem to be a choice, but a natural tendency. In fact, left-handers have significantly different brain layouts -- which confirms that handedness is not a choice.

Similarly, sexuality in most cases is not a choice. You can't decide whom you consider attractive, neutral, or repulsive. These judgements come to you "naturally", they are not a choice. Attractiveness is not a perfect analogy to sexuality, however, since it can be significantly influenced by childhood environment. But you can think of sexuality as handedness. The majority of us are "right-sexed", with a minority being "left-sexed". There is no such thing as "wrong-sexed", just as there is no such thing as "wrong-handed".

Homosexuality is not a disease; nor is it a psychological condition. It is a natural variation (perhaps genetic, perhaps developmental, perhaps both) -- just as is handedness, or color of skin, or straightness of hair, or body build. In fact, there has been (admittedly, still pretty tentative) evidence that homosexuals indeed have systematically different brains from heterosexuals. There has also been some (still controversial) evidence that sexuality may be genetic.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Flash,

That was pretty funny! Thanks again for the laugh. Maybe there is an underlying reason why some Chrisians (and others) are homophobic? Check this out:

http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Boris,


There has also been some (still controversial) evidence that sexuality may be genetic.

I'm not sure how one passes down a trait such as homosexuality, but it's an interesting theory. :)

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,

Yeah, that was an interesting site but still, non-conclusive. Also, it did not take into consideration homophobic females... what do you think is up with that, anyway?

By the way... I did see your response about the impending new arrival... My prayers and best wishes are with you and your family.

Keep us posted!

Our new addition is scheduled to arrive in April.

Searcher,

You have a point there buddy! Obviously, homosexuality is not an evolutionarily beneficial trait; it is certainly very rarely heritable. :D

Which might be one reason why it is only exhibited in a minority of humans. It could be a (relatively frequent and minor) genetic mutation that has about 20% chance of occurring in gametes. Or, it could be a recessive trait, so that it would need presence in both parents in order to produce a homosexual child. It could be a combination of these two. But then again, it might not even be genetic (as I said, there's still a controversy, with some studies showing genetic correlations, and other studies showing no correlations.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 05, 2000).]

Hey Searcher,
That is very interesting...LOL Thanks for sharing that with us... could very well be that they are in denial, huh??


[This message has been edited by Flash (edited February 06, 2000).]

Other interesting sites:
www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/natural.html (http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/natural.html)

Scriptural support for homosexuality: http://php.iupui.edu/~jtownsle/gay.html#mypos

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited February 06, 2000).]

Oh come ON! You guys are full o' crapola. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. :) ALL of us are on that "hormonal spectrum" somewhere. But I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us are either born with a vagina or a penis. Right? It's pretty bleepin' obvious. Now what to do with it is the question. Well hello? Can we just simply use a little logic and solid biological principles here or what? I'll answer my own question ok?

If you're a man, you can CHOOSE to stick your shlong into a woman's vagina, a man's asshole, or a hole in the wall, or a sheep, or someone's ear if I'm not mistaken, or you can put it in your own hand. Now, let me ask you...which makes more logical sense based upon what we know about ourselves as human beings????????????

If you're a woman, you can CHOOSE to accept a man's shlong into your vagina, OR you can use a wide variety of SUBSTITUTES for said shlong, for example another woman's finger, some battery operated hunk of plastic, a coke bottle, a banana, I think you get the point. Now again, based upon what we know about human biology, what the bleep choice makes most logical sense?????????????

I'm sorry, but as far as pure physical enjoyment goes, I'm a firm believer that it feels just as good if a man's rubbing on you as it does if a woman's rubbing on you. It makes no f'ing difference. There are men who are good at it and lots of men who don't know what the bleep they're doing, and of course couldn't care less as long as they get off. There are women who are good at it, and then there are women who lay there like they're dead just waiting for it to be over. So what? That doesn't have a damn thing to do with the price of tea in China.

Ok then you say it's not about the physical aspect of it, you say that it's about the emotional side of it. Fine. Are all of the lesbians out there saying to me that there is not ONE man worthy of your love, respect, trust, and support out there in this entire world? Are all of the gay men saying the same thing to me regarding women? I beg to differ. As a matter of fact, I personally know much better than that. I have been close friends with a few gay people in my life and continue to be to this day. Some of the nicest people that I've ever met. And for crying out loud, why wouldn't they be???? Anyway, this one man, Jeff, who I was very close with. We used to work together when I was a waitress. Well Jeff was a flamer ok? Big time flamer, flamer, flamer, walk the walk, talk the talk, homo. He was the kind of guy that would start spontaniously voguing like Madonna to the musac playing in the restaurant. We had talked about his personal experience with his sexuality before, and he gave me the whole song and dance about how he just knew he was gay even when he was young he just knew, as if he had no choice, like it was some genetic programming that took place or something, and he was just at it's mercy like some robot. He kept it hidden when he was in high school and had a girlfriend, but he said that he always really wanted to be with a man. And so he was, with many may I add. He had some good lasting relationships and some not so good just like most of us do. And then after a while, I couldn't help but noticed the way he looked at me changed. I thought I was imagining it, or that it was just a platonic friendship that was getting much closer, so that was great with me. For example, I will never, ever forget this one til the day I die, but we and some other friends that we worked with went to Sunlight pool, this huge huge public pool in Cincy. I was laying out in the sun half asleep and felt something warm and wet on my toes. I looked up and Jeff was sucking on them. And just let me say that my toes are definately NOT my best feature ok? Well, this was just like something that he would do, just not necessarily to me, but it felt kinda good! I didn't think much of it. *shrug* And this is the thing, listen to this....later that day, do ya know how when you swim under water, you blow out your nose so you don't get water up in it? Well, and sometimes when you come up out of the water, you'll have a boogie hangin'? Well, I did that. I came up out of the water, got out of the pool, walked straight over to the concession stand where Jeff was in line. He took one look at me, and without even thinking about it for one second, reached up with his hand, grabbed the boogie, and wiped it on his swim trunks very inconspicuously. And he just smiled at me and said "you had a boogie." I just stood there in awe, mouth hanging open, eyes like saucers. And I was thinking "Wow, now THAT'S a good friend!" Stunned. But I just even then thought, that's just Jeff ya know? And I was so glad that he was my friend too.

But then not too long after that, we went out to a dance club, as we often did, and he asked me to slow dance, and while we were dancing, he told me that he wanted to have a romantic relationship with me. He said that he was attracted to me like he hadn't ever been to a girl before. He said that he never ever thought that he would ever feel the way he did, but that he did feel that way, and finally got up enough nerve to tell me. He wanted me sexually, and not just that, but emotionally as well. That was over 10 years ago. And I chickened out. I didn't want to deal with the responsibility and I wimped. I wish to this day that I hadn't done that.

You know, gay people are the first ones to always jump up and point the finger at straight people for being closed minded, particularly Christians. I think it's the other way around. Let me show you. I am a straight person and a Christian. Have I ever fantisized about being with a woman? Of course I have, that's normal. If I were ever to act out upon that fantasy, do I think that it would be a physically and emotionally enjoyable experience? Sure, why wouldn't it be????? The fact is that there are a WIDE VARIETY of things that turn me on. That's NORMAL. Some things I've seen, namely in porno movies and the like, have turned me on and sickened and repulsed me at the same time. I'D LOVE FOR SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN THAT ONE FOR ME. Just because something feels good, doens't automatically make it ok. That belief is found in Satan's bible if I'm not mistaken. Use your heads that God gave you for crying out loud. I can say that I find the male body to be beautiful, and I can say that I find the female body to be beautiful. Gay people don't EVER say that. They tend to act irrationally, as if the opposite sex is just INTOLERABLE for some reason, and is NOT beautiful, or worthy, or like they have COOTIES or something, and it's illogical, it's irrational, it's not normal, and it's CLOSE-MINDED. So there.

When I view our spiritual laws, I view it as only consisting of ONE set of laws that are universal and ideal. ONE pure truth that is universal and ideal. I'm sorry, but that ONLY makes sense. We don't all operate under little individually vacuum packed gravitational fields do we?????? We are talking about an ideal intent for which we were given our sex organs. AND LET ME POINT OUT THAT IF HOMOSEXUALITY WERE THAT IDEAL, THE HUMAN RACE WOULD CEASE TO EXIST.

The INTENT of our sexuality is procreation. The spiritual laws regarding our sexuality are all centered around the natural consequence of said intent, children. The physical and emotional pleasure is merely an aspect of it, a by-product, a benefit, and quite a wonderful one at that don't you agree? :D It's not the other way around ok? And that's exactly the way that this society views it anymore, and that view is a perverted one. We, in our selfish, Godless state, want to keep and capitalize and even obsess on the benefit, and throw away, kill, or somehow avoid the original intent. I dare someone to argue that one with me. Bring it on!

Well, I have to go watch James Kennedy now. He's my favorite preacher. Praise Jesus. And thank you God for the sex organs you gave us. I wish that we would just learn how to stop using them to glorify our pitiful selves, and learn to use them to glorify you, oh Lord, my Saviour, I love you!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,


I can say that I find the male body to be beautiful, and I can say that I find the female body to be beautiful. Gay people don't EVER say that. They tend to act irrationally, as if the opposite sex is just INTOLERABLE for some reason, and is NOT beautiful, or worthy, or like they have COOTIES or something, and it's illogical, it's irrational, it's not normal, and it's CLOSE-MINDED. So there.

You're so full of it!! What world are you living in? I have a number of gay friends, and I find that they are as captivated by physical beauty as any of the rest of us - and in some ways, even more so! As a matter of fact, I remember not too long ago when I was eating lunch with a couple of male friends, one gay and one straight, and they were discussing beautiful women. The gay friend thought Calista Flockhart was just perfect, while the straight friend thought she was way too thin. That's just one example, but I've witnessed this sort of conversation many times. My own brother is openly gay, and I can't count the number of times I've heard him say something like, "Oh, I think she's just absolutely gorgeous!"

I've also heard that Melissa Etheridge and her lesbian friends were once sitting around discussing Brad Pitt, saying that he was gorgeous enough to make a woman change her mind!! (Oh yeah, baby!!! :eek: )


When I view our spiritual laws, I view it as only consisting of ONE set of laws that are universal and ideal. ONE pure truth that is universal and ideal. I'm sorry, but that ONLY makes sense. We don't all operate under little individually vacuum packed gravitational fields do we?????? We are talking about an ideal intent for which we were given our sex organs. AND LET ME POINT OUT THAT IF HOMOSEXUALITY WERE THAT IDEAL, THE HUMAN RACE WOULD CEASE TO EXIST.

Yeah, it's no surprise to me that the world you live in is black and white. Who says that homosexuality is the ideal? It's just one of the many variations that make this world such an interesting place in which to live. But then I guess your intolerant views kind of fall into the same category - what would life be like without a little friction here and there, eh?


The INTENT of our sexuality is procreation. The spiritual laws regarding our sexuality are all centered around the natural consequence of said intent, children. The physical and emotional pleasure is merely an aspect of it, a by-product, a benefit, and quite a wonderful one at that don't you agree?

I recall reading somewhere that the human species is the only one in which the female is capable of achieving orgasm. Obviously, this is not necessary for procreation. To the best of my knowledge, we are also the only ones capable of preventing pregnancy at will. Could it be that sex is intended as a gift, and procreation a choice?



------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,


You're so full of it!! What world are you living in?

I admire your spunk. ;)


I have a number of gay friends, and I find that they are as captivated by physical beauty as any of the rest of us - and in some ways, even more so!

Well, I have a number of gay friends, and as they may say that someone of the opposite sex is "just fabulous honey", when it comes down to, well if they're so fabulous, then why wouldn't you want to have a sexual relationship with them, all of a sudden, they're not that fabulous. Why? Also, in a more general sense, I think that physical beauty is highly subjective, and highly over-rated from any sexual perspective.


My own brother is openly gay, and I can't count the number of times I've heard him say something like, "Oh, I think she's just absolutely gorgeous!"

I've also heard that Melissa Etheridge and her lesbian friends were once sitting around discussing Brad Pitt, saying that he was gorgeous enough to make a woman change her mind!! (Oh yeah, baby!!! )

Yea Searcher, that's my point. Brad Pitt and many other men ARE gorgeous enough, or faithful enough, or nice enough, or sensative enough, or admirable enough, or trustworthy enough, or well enough endowed, or giving enough, or romantic enough....need I go on? So my question then to Melissa Ethridge is, so why not? What's the big bleepin' deal? What's the problem? And the answer is that there is no problem except for one that was created in her mind. There are many reasons, many, many reasons that a woman may find many men that do not fall into the above category. I myself have yet to experience a relationship with such a man as that. BUT that doesn't mean that one shouldn't or doesn't exist, and damnit, I'm gonna find his ass if it kills me. :D


Yeah, it's no surprise to me that the world you live in is black and white. Who says that homosexuality is the ideal? It's just one of the many variations that make this world such an interesting place in which to live. But then I guess your intolerant views kind of fall into the same category - what would life be like without a little friction here and there, eh?

Yes Searcher, in my intolerant views (which I scoff at the mention of) I think that we all DO fall into the same category. Sinners. Don't you dare go assuming that I think that 99.9% of the STRAIGHT sex that goes on in this world doesn't fall pretty short of the mark either. It's really all about intentions isn't it? I'm saying that those same pure intentions towards someone can be there no matter what gender they are, so why pretend that they can't?


I recall reading somewhere that the human species is the only one in which the female is capable of achieving orgasm. Obviously, this is not necessary for procreation. To the best of my knowledge, we are also the only ones capable of preventing pregnancy at will. Could it be that sex is intended as a gift, and procreation a choice?

I know, aren't we lucky?! :D Thanks, God! Yes, we prevent pregnancy at will. This is the internalization of God's will unto our own and a product of rejecting the entire notion of God and His relation to us. It is a product of not understanding the story of the Tower of Babel in the Bible. Ask yourself what are the root causes in this society that perpetuate our desire to avoid pregancy? I think that if you give it enough though, surely you will come up with several of the deadliest sins. Go figure.

Sex a gift, and procreation a choice? No, that arguement goes against everything logical that I am aware of or have experienced very intimately in my own life. Sorry. Open thoust eyeballs.



------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,


Well, I have a number of gay friends, and as they may say that someone of the opposite sex is "just fabulous honey", when it comes down to, well if they're so fabulous, then why wouldn't you want to have a sexual relationship with them, all of a sudden, they're not that fabulous. Why?

Uh, because they're gay? Put it this way: I think Catherine Zeta-Jones is one of the most beautiful women in the world - in fact, "just fabulous honey"! Does this mean I'd want to have a sexual relationship with her? Hardly. Why not? Uh, because I'm straight?

I'm a little bit confused about your sexual attitudes, Lori. Sex is not just for procreation - it's also an important part of any healthy marriage. I decided over 18 years ago that I didn't want anymore children. I can guarantee that if I had also decided that sex is only for procreation and therefore I no longer wanted to have sex with my husband - my marriage would have ended over 18 years ago as well!

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Let me first start out by stating, that I am a lesbian, and I will not be made to feel ashamed or guilty of it, it is not WHO I am, but simply, WHAT I am. The following statements were chosen as rebuttals to responses throughout this thread. In keeping to your expressed wishes on trying to use facts/documentations instead of minor opinions, I have compiled the following:

The American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JULY.
Their first two paragraphs are:

The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.

The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed.

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973.

The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1981

Orientation is fixed early, at least by the time the child reaches school age. In many cases, it occurs before birth; perhaps at conception; the cause is totally outside the control of the person and their parents. No therapy, counseling or prayer can change it

Heterosexuality is the norm. However some people develop homosexual behavior like other negative behaviors, such as lying or stealing. But that also seems unlikely, because homosexuality "...exists in animal species in which these actions-these "sins"-cannot occur." 1

Introspection: Most sexually active adults are aware that their sexual orientation is not chosen and not changeable. Assuming that you are a heterosexual: Consider how you would change yourself so that you were sexually attracted to a person of the same gender. You will realize that it is quite impossible to create feelings of sexual attraction if they do not currently exist.
Consider at what age you chose your sexual orientation? You will realize that, as far back as you can remember, you were either asexual or heterosexual.

Irrationality of choice: In the forward to the book "We Were Baptized Too: Claiming God's Grace for Lesbians and Gays", Anglican Archbishop Benjamin Tutu of South Africa writes "Someone has said that if this sexual orientation were indeed a matter of personal choice, the homosexual persons must be the craziest coots around to choose a way of life that exposes them to so much hostility, discrimination, loss and suffering."

What is "Natural"?
Significant to Paul's discussion is the fact that these "unclean" Gentiles exchanged that which was "natural" for them, physin, in the Greek text, for something "unnatural," para physin. In Romans 11:24, God acts in an "unnatural" way, para physin, to accept the Gentiles. "Unnatural" in these passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural," para physin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.
Conclusion…No Law Against Love:
The rarity with which Paul discusses any form of same-sex behavior and the ambiguity in references attributed to him make it extremely unsound to conclude any sure position in the New Testament on homosexuality, especially in the context of loving, responsible relationships. Since any arguments must be made from silence, it is much more reliable to turn to great principles of the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do not judge others, lest you be judged. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love . . . <font color=purple>AGAINST SUCH THERE IS NO LAW

Flash,

Is this the first time you've "come out of the closet" on this board? I certainly commend you on your courage!


Most sexually active adults are aware that their sexual orientation is not chosen and not changeable. Assuming that you are a heterosexual: Consider how you would change yourself so that you were sexually attracted to a person of the same gender. You will realize that it is quite impossible to create feelings of sexual attraction if they do not currently exist.

This is a good point, but I would also like to point out that not only are people usually attracted to one sex or the other - they are also attracted only to certain types within that sex. Although I am heterosexual, there are many men that I couldn't even imagine a sexual relationship with - they simply are not my type! I also consider this to be pretty well outside of my control, in that I don't decide that I will only be attracted to men with a particular eye color or hair color or skin color, or any other physical or personality attributes - I'm either attracted to them or not.

By the way, what do you think of Brad Pitt? ;)



------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,
I'd like to thank you on your commendation of my courage, and on the same token I would like to commend you on your open-mindedness.
You have earned my respect and admiration.

I totally agree with your point and feel the same way in respect to attracted to certain "types" being beyond your control, as I feel the same way and know exactly what you are saying. I myself like certain types more so than others. Not ever questioning
why just accepting it as being so.

In regards to your question of Brad Pitt I only want to know.. Does he have a sister?????? ;)

hello all,

to begin, i think it's important to point out that for the most part, when we engage in sexual acts it is NOT for reproduction, it is for enjoyment. in fact, most of us would take measures to insure that it does NOT cause reproduction. the emotional end of sexuality is not just a part of it, it dominates it. as a heterosexual male, if a female were not available, i could not simply replace her with a male and expect the same results, so to speak. what's more, if you were to pay me $5 billion to be attracted to a man, i still could not because that is out of my hands. on the same token, i would not expect a gay person to be attracted to the opposite sex just because society tells them to.

to help you all a little more, scientists currently think that homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality are all caused by certain types hormone exposure in the womb. nothing done after birth can effect who you are attracted to. it is not a psychological defect, a disease, or a choice. it is just as predetermined as having two arms or a penis. (by the way lori, that post was NASTY! i love it!)

to evolution, humans are no longer a part of the evolution process. most people are under the misconception that life strives to become better. this is not the case. through random mutations, some life turns out to be better, some to be worse. it is just as likely that wolves would have developed the instinct to have no concern for their young as it is for them to care for their young, but only the wolves that cared for their young survive. thus, all the wolves around care for their young. we see this happening with bacteria and viruses all the time. when a vaccine wipes out all but 1% of a virus, it isn't that that 1% now develops an immunity to that vaccine to survive, rather that it ALREADY was immune, which is how it survived in the first place. now, since all viruses that are not immune have been killed off, every virus that reproduces will now be immune to that vaccine.

humans have been taken out of evolution because we no longer have to worry about advantageous and disadvantageous traits. modern science will still allow for us to survive, and we will still be able to reproduce, passing on our "disadvantageous traits."

this brings us to why christians are generally homophobic. to be clear, there are just as many passages in the bible which imply that homosexuality is okay as there are passages speaking against it, but christians choose to look to the ones that support their own beliefs (as usual). besides that, we see that this is just one of a million sins that we see people violating every day. no one is without sin, even the most devout christian. what's more, the bible tells you to love thy neighbor. why can christians get along with a non-christian that they see as going to hell and not a homosexual that they see as having the same fate?

the answer is a psychological phenomenom called ontological norm selection. this entails doing what you see as "normal" to do, and in fact thinking what is "normal" to think. ask yourself, why did you cheer for your high school football team and go to those games? because you are truly more interesting in that sport than other sports? some are, but for the most part we see that it is what people think is normal, and so that is what they do. in fact, they have done studies where they put people in a room where all the other people start to strip down to their underwear, and guess what! you will too, just because everyone else is doing it!

for homophobics, it isn't that they have been wronged by a gay person, or that they truly believe that they are defending god's honor, rather that they see it as normal to hate gay people, so they do. i have to admit, when i was younger i used to be homophobic for this very reason, but now i realize that they are people just like everyone else.

samus

Execuse the spellingy guys, I don't have time to run this through Word and do a spelling check.
When I think of Homosexuality as being a choice I have to LOL. I can still remenber the time when I was a young man and how hard it was to control my harmons. Now someone wants me to believe that some guy or gal simply says I think I'll be gay and then goes over to the other side. Please............... only a moran would be this kind of shit. YES LORI, SHIT...
For thoes of us who have matured mentally and physically beyond our teens think back and remenber how much we all wanted to fit into a group. No way in hell would anyone decide to become gay at that age and put themselves in that position. I think Boris explained it pretty good. .

Flash
******
Searcher was right, it took courage to do what you did, and I also would like to say it took courage.
You have my respect.

Searcher
***********
Good show. I'd like to say here that you posted some great responses in another topic that Flash posted that inpressed me greatly.
When time permits I'll do a post on it. I was really moved by some comments you made.

Flash,

*BG* Yeah! I'm very proud of you too homey! See? The truth shall set you free. Now hold that thought, and mosy on over to the "God Hates blah, blah, blah" string and have at it. :) You've got people practically begging you...


You have earned my respect and admiration.

Do I get some too? I respect and admire you. Even though we see some things differently. :)


In regards to your question of Brad Pitt I only want to know.. Does he have a sister??????

See what I mean about CLOSE-MINDED???????? Who the hell could NOT want to do Brad Pitt?????????? No one, that's who. And it's not because of anything about him specifically, like hygeine, personality, looks, it's ONLY because he's a man. Now that my friends, is close-minded.


Searcher,


Uh, because they're gay? Put it this way: I think Catherine Zeta-Jones is one of the most beautiful women in the world - in fact, "just fabulous honey"! Does this mean I'd want to have a sexual relationship with her? Hardly. Why not? Uh, because I'm straight?

Is that really the best that you can do? Slap some arbitrary, meaningless label on them and say "it's that way cause it's labeled that way"? How about this? They are women and men just like we are. Women and men, pussy's and shlongs. You talk about me and Christians not respecting or admiring or tolerating individuality for some reason when it comes to sexuality? That's so hypocritically bogus. You just hit the nail on the head there big time. Why are they gay? Because even from an early age they knew they were "different" right? So, the little boy who wasn't into sports and fighting, but was more into barbies or art didn't fit into our society's mold that we thought he should. So what did we do? Point out what a freak and how different he was all the time, til we finally convinced him of it. Yea, convinced him that he certainly didn't fit in with us heterosexuals right? He probably got that point pretty well as he was getting his ass kicked by some neandrothal bully at school. So, I think that everybody wants to "fit in" somewhere. Where's the alternative that's shoved into this kid's face? Why you're not one of us, you must be a "homosexual". "There's a label for you, now don't you feel better?" The fact is that most gay men would make a hell of a husband to a woman, and when there are so few of those types out there to go around, that's a damn shame. And you can just substitute the tom-boy girl with an athletic build or didn't fit into the f'ing barbie-doll, subserviant sex slave, prissy-ass mold society made for her. I mean for crying out loud, look at the number of beautiful women out there that are BUTCHERING themselves for the sake of fitting into that mold????!!!! It's hideous.

You want to dog about individuality, let me ask you a few questions then....

Why do most gay men talk like valley girls with a lisp?

Why is the Ford Explorer somehow deemed "the lesbian mobile"?

Why do many lesbian women try to look so much like men? From the attire, the hair-do (or lack there-of), the wallet vs purse thing, the no make-up thing. Especially if men sexually repulse them sooooooo much? Seems kind of contradictory doesn't it????? Same for all you gay drag queens with fake tits out there??? What the? Why put a fake set of tits on a man so you can doink him up the butt, wouldn't it be a hell of a lot easier for everyone if you just doinked a women? It makes NO SENSE.

Oh and excuse me but I think that you may be telling a little fib ok? Do you mean to say that if you were to imagine having "sex", and I'm using that term liberally here, with Catherine Zeta-Jones, or that if she were to do a little slap and tickle on you that you wouldn't get turned on?????? I think that you're fibbing. So why is it that you WOULDN'T have sex with her? Why not? I think it would be fun.


I'm a little bit confused about your sexual attitudes, Lori. Sex is not just for procreation - it's also an important part of any healthy marriage. I decided over 18 years ago that I didn't want anymore children. I can guarantee that if I had also decided that sex is only for procreation and therefore I no longer wanted to have sex with my husband - my marriage would have ended over 18 years ago as well!

Of course it's an important part of a marriage. Actually, it's the reason for marriage, in a spiritual sense rather than a legal one. Don't get me wrong here, ok, I am a firm believer that everybody should have sex!!!! Lots of it! The good stuff! The BOMB!!!! I just think that we're all supposed to be willing and able to deal with the consequences, which are children. Let me ask you, cause you didn't really address what I said regarding today's society's "birth aversion". Why did you want to stop having kids?

Also, I think that the intimacy of relationships and sex between men and women,
is very important. More so than the majority of us perceive. I think that men and women are supposed to come together, and that we benefit each other in many ways. I think that men definately haven't appreciated this need of theirs to learn to foster their emotions and to be sensitive and caring and gentle and loving. They learn that from women. They learn that from BEING with a woman. Because if she's gonna get off, he better learn to be right? Well, I don't really think most men try all that much. And I don't think that a lot of women try to teach them either. And women need things from men. They need to be mothers. Even lesbian women want to be motherly. But seems that the only way they can do that is to depend on someone having to "not want" a baby. Why should anyone have to "not want" a baby? Well, speculate some, and I'm sure that you'll find a reason or two or three in those deadly sins of ours that the Bibles always talking about.

Samus,


what's more, if you were to pay me $5 billion to be attracted to a man, i still could not because that is out of my hands. on the same token, i would not expect a gay person to be attracted to the opposite sex just because society tells them to.

Uh, I'm gonna have to call you on this one just to be fair too. Are you telling me that if a man gave you a little slap and tickle that you wouldn't get turned on? Are you saying that if you were to even witness two men butt-doinking that you wouldn't get turned on? Are you saying that if a good looking man gave you the BJ of your life that you wouldn't get off? I think that you are totally lying. Big time. You are talking out both sides of your mouth because you said that you could substitute a man's butt for a woman and still have the same "release". Then you turn around and say that you wouldn't be attracted to a man for $5 billion. Please explain, you're making my head spin. (Psst...watch him squirm with defensiveness cause I just proposed something that doesn't jive with the paradigm).


to be clear, there are just as many passages in the bible which imply that homosexuality is okay as there are passages speaking against it, but christians choose to look to the ones that support their own beliefs (as usual). besides that, we see that this is just one of a million sins that we see people violating every day. no one is without sin, even the most devout christian. what's more, the bible tells you to love thy neighbor. why can christians get along with a non-christian that they see as going to hell and not a homosexual that they see as having the same fate?

To be really clear, let's have at some of these passages of which you speak. I'm extremely interested. Me and Flash, who is GAY are good friends. She's not going to hell cause she has lesbian sex or any other kind of sex. She'll go because she chooses to reject Jesus. Homosexuals (I guess if you HAVE to use that label which I think is so bogus) can be saved in Jesus Christ. A sin is only a sin if you understand it to be a sin. God does not expect perfection, if He did He would be a very lonely being, at least in relation to us humans. I don't think that homosexual sex is any MORE of a sin than adultery, or fornication of any kind that is not within the intent and will of God. I suppose that we all make up in our heads some arbitrary scale that we use to decide "how bad" a certain sin is huh? Us and our stupid relativity. Fact is that God is the only one who can be that judge, so we should just give it up, really for our own good, don't ya think? Everyone has their own circumstances, pain, and trials in life, and their own cross to bear. We should all respect that a lot more than we do.




------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

See what I mean about CLOSE-MINDED???????? Who the hell could NOT want to do Brad Pitt?????????? No one, that's who. And it's not because of anything about him specifically, like hygeine, personality, looks, it's ONLY because he's a man. Now that my friends, is close-minded.

Are you actually trying to say that because I am not attracted to Brad Pitt simply because he is a "MAN", that I am a lesbian???? :eek:
Or are you saying that BECAUSE I am a lesbian that I am not attracted to Brad Pitt simply because he is a man is what makes me "close-minded" ?? :eek:
Lori, what exactly do you think lesbian means? I'm just curious. :rolleyes:


So, the little boy who wasn't into sports and fighting, but was more into barbies or art didn't fit into our society's mold that we thought he should. So what did we do? Point out what a freak and how different he was all the time, til we finally convinced him of it. Yea, convinced him that he certainly didn't fit in with us heterosexuals right? He probably got that point pretty well as he was getting his ass kicked by some neandrothal bully at school. So, I think that everybody wants to "fit in" somewhere. Where's the alternative that's shoved into this kid's face? Why you're not one of us, you must be a "homosexual"

Ok, Lori, given that is how homosexuals are "made", how can society "convince" a fetus ? In my studies that I posted, WHICH YOU SO CASUALLY IGNORED, Orientation is fixed early, at least by the time the child reaches school age. In many cases, it occurs before birth; perhaps at conception; the cause is totally outside the control of the person and their parents. No therapy, counseling or prayer can change it.

Another question for you......Did you put that the Ford Explorer is a lesbian-mobile just because that is what Marie drives, or do you have some type of lesbian information hotline that I am not aware of. BTWFYI the "lesbian-mobile" is the Jeep Wrangler :)

Excuse me, but I want to clarify for all the people reading your post, that I DO NOT look like a man as you have so ignorantly described lesbians.

I have to step in and defend Searcher on this one. You said, and I quote
Oh and excuse me but I think that you may be telling a little fib ok? Do you mean to say that if you were to imagine having "sex", and I'm using that term liberally here, with Catherine Zeta-Jones, or that if she were to do a little slap and tickle on you that you wouldn't get turned on?????? I think that you're fibbing. So why is it that you WOULDN'T have sex with her? Why not? I think it would be fun. Searcher NEVER said anything about wanting to have sex with this woman, nor did she imply it in any way
Uh, because they're gay? Put it this way: I think Catherine Zeta-Jones is one of the most beautiful women in the world - in fact, "just fabulous honey"! Does this mean I'd want to have a sexual relationship with her? Hardly. Why not? Uh, because I'm straight? She was simply using this analogy to make a point. She was being very sincere and open-minded in doing so I might add. In this instance you were wrong to attack that particular statement with your own hidden tendencies toward homosexuality.

What exactly do you mean by the statement you made about lesbians wanting to be motherly and having to depend on someone "not wanting" a baby? I personally know "lesbian" couples who have children. Therefore, they wanted to be motherly, AND DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

I am also a bit curious why you totally disregarded my post other than commenting on my "coming out", which by the way, was Marie's idea. You are always so quick to rip to shreds everything I post, but for some reason you chose to leave this one alone. Why is that?

Also, Zappers, I sincerely thank you..this means a lot to me :)

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited February 06, 2000).]

"Unnatural" in these passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural," para physin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.
Conclusion…No Law Against Love:
The rarity with which Paul discusses any form of same-sex behavior and the ambiguity in references attributed to him make it extremely unsound to conclude any sure position in the New Testament on homosexuality, especially in the context of loving, responsible relationships. Since any arguments must be made from silence, it is much more reliable to turn to great principles of the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles...

Yes, Flash!

This is very much in line with what I expressed when you and I were discussing the issue of "sin or not" with respect to homosexuality on 1/30 under the "So God does not hate sinners..." thread:


Jesus Christ taught us to live in right relationships through love. Unlike the very clear message of salvation through Jesus Christ and the ten commandments, I do not see sexuality being addressed in a black and white manner.

Proponents of homosexuality can pick and choose certain passages of the Bible to support their position as can opponents of homosexuality.

Whether or not a person's sexuality is an issue of sin or not is really a personal matter between them and God and I'll tell you why I say this... I do know a couple of people who say that, before they accepted Jesus Christ into their lives, they "practiced" homosexuality. These couple of people abandoned that practice after they accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. In speaking with these couple of people, they expressed a belief that "their" homosexuality was a "sin" because they actually "chose" promiscuous homosexuality as a way of rebelling. In their heart which became filled with the grace of Jesus Christ, they came to the realization that what "they" were doing was wrong... Therefore, in their heart, they were sinning by "practicing" homosexuality... However, for the majority of homosexual Christians that I have come to know, their sexuality is not an issue of "sin" in their heart which is filled with the grace of Jesus Christ... The majority of homosexual Christians that I know truly believe that they are living in righteous, monogamous, family-oriented, life-long relationships based on love.

That is why I say that, of course, the first and most important thing is to accept Jesus Christ into one's life. Nothing has to necessarily be "given up" or "changed" beforehand. "If" someone is living a "sinful" life, and has seriously accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior, while they are walking "with" Jesus Christ, He will surely let them know if something needs to be changed in their life...

And...


If someone practices homosexuality BECAUSE they think it's a sin or if they are doing it just TO BE "bad," so to speak, then it is a sin. If this person truly accepted Jesus Christ in their life then, through the grace of Jesus Christ, they would realize their sinful ways and turn against practicing homosexuality. Like the rest of us, they would still be a "sinner," however, they would be saved through the grace of Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, if someone is naturally born a homosexual, and they are otherwise living in right relationships through love, then their homosexuality would not be a sin.

lori,

i hate to break this to you, but...

you are a bisexual. i'm sorry your religion and your closed-mindedness will never allow you to admit it, but you are. your sexuality is in being, not in practice. if i were to experiment with men, this would not be "leasing with the option to buy" myself a new sexuality. if you would enjoy a "slap and a tickle" from both men and women, then you are bisexual. there's definitely nothing wrong with that, but that's the way it is.

what's more, this is why you are so involved in this discussion. you want to think that just because you don't involve yourself in sexual relations with women that you can pretend you aren't gay. no one else here has failed to see what is SO OBVIOUS, and i refuse to believe that someone can see all of this evidence and reasoning and still come to the conclusions you do without having serious motives behind your thinking.

now, you seem to think that this is because everybody is bisexual. you strive to tell everyone that we are all attracted to men and women equally, and that it is only our own choice which way we go. your explanations for this are terrible.

you have challenged me on my $5 billion wager without knowing anything about me or my history, but i can deal with it. i have in fact had several experiences with men, but it has only shown me that i simply am not attracted to them. in fact, i have it on good authority that i am one of the most attractive men to gay men (we're talking celebrity status, here), and it would be great if i were gay. dealing with men is way easier than dealing with you women and all of your dopey ways.

consider the fact that we are only attracted to certain females or males (or both, for you bisexuals). if you were to take the same $5 billion and try to pay me to be attracted to a fat, ugly woman, i could not do it. it is totally beyond my control. there is nothing i could do to become attracted to an ugly woman, a farm animal, or a man (no matter how beautiful the farm animal was). i think this point is obvious to anyone approaching this discussion with an even remotely open mind. (don't get me wrong, i would suffer through it for the cash. this is $5 billion!)

by the way, i never said that you could replace a woman's vagina with a man's butt. please put down the crack pipe and reread my original post. pay close attention to where i show you the scientific community's explanation of homosexuality.

samus

TS,
Yes, I am very aware of that. When I was doing research today and found those things it hit me that was some of the very things which you were sharing with me. LOL

dealing with men is way easier than dealing with you women and all of your dopey ways.

Hey!!! Watch it, bud!!!

ROFLMAO@TS hahaha...get him, TS!

Lori,

I was going to tell you that you may be a bisexual, but samus beat me to it! I think your testimony contains quite a few hints toward it.

Also, thus far you've been giving too much emphasis to sexual arousal. It is true that most people can be sexually aroused by representatives of either sex if they are not given control over the situation. If I am to be frank, then we can see this from considering masturbation. If you can pleasure yourself, then it should be no problem for you to have someone else pleasure you in the same way (provided you get past the embarrassment stage.)

However, sexual arousal is only a small part of the story. You mentioned emotional aspects of sexual relationships in passing, and suggested that they are factors of psychology and choice. Well, let me see if I can cement this notion that you are a bisexual. Have you ever <u>fallen in love</u> with a woman? I mean, not just felt attracted to, but became so involved that you could think of nothing else? If so, you are a bisexual (assuming you had fallen equally in love with a man before, otherwise you might even be a homosexual!) On the other hand, if you've never fallen in love with a woman, recall what it felt like when you fell in love with a man (assuming you ever had.) Gay people are capable of such love for a member of their own sex, but not for a member of the opposite sex. That is what makes them gay. An opposite phenomenon is what makes heterosexuals heterosexual. Bisexuals show no such bias at all.

When considering procreation and associated proprieties, you rightfully take body plan into account. However, a human equation has two parts, and body is only one of them. In fact, it is safe to assume that in most cases, where we are concerned, it's the mind that is in charge. Should it really be so incredible that in a few instances, the body and the mind might just be "mismatched", so to say?

Finally, may I point out the obvious (ahem) downfall of your argument? You are arguing from an assumption that the Bible is correct! (Not even mentioning that you are assuming your particular interpretation of the Bible to be correct!) Just how much sense do you think you would make to a homosexual who doesn't share your beliefs?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

There’s a lot I want to say, but I’ll begin with a quote from Lori, who incorrectly tries to master a command of Shakespearean English: “Open thoust eyes.” When you do open thine eyes, you might be shocked what you see…

Lori originally wrote that sexual preference is “a choice that one makes that happens to make NO SENSE logically whatsoever.” Perhaps this is the case, but I don’t necessarily think so. I’m willing to bet that whatever choice someone makes probably makes a lot of sense to them. I like orange juice, not apple, so when I go to the supermarket, I’m probably going to buy orange juice. This is rational to me because I know that I like orange juice and not apple. Despite the fact that this is tautological, I think its heuristic function is obvious. And, on a more important note, I don’t think that we know a whole lot about sexuality, and much less sexual preference, so there’s not much that can really be said on the issue that isn’t already truism.

Boris commented: “In fact, left-handers have significantly different brain layouts -- which confirms that handedness is not a choice.” First of all, handedness can be a choice. Most people are capable of learning to write with other than their dominant limb, of course requiring many hours of practice. Second, to suggest that they have “significantly different brain layouts” is absurd. The differences noted over handedness by most neuropsychologists, much less other traits due to genetic variance, are negligible. It’d be similar to Al Gore wearing a red shirt instead of his usual white, while a human observer stood on the moon trying to describe the topology of the earth. It has less to do with schematics, in fact, and more to do with patterns of neuron-firing.

Boris continues: “Similarly, sexuality in most cases is not a choice.” Again, you must be careful, because this statement is very nuanced, though I doubt you realize it. Sexuality is indeed a choice, evidenced by most multiple surveys (the most authoritative done by the University of Wisconsin-Madison), when you are discussing bi- and homosexuality. Most research has shown that half of those polled were willingly bisexual or gay out of choice, rather than an innate preference. And it almost always can be broken down to a 50-50 formula (half innate, half choice), survey problems notwithstanding, (e.g., correlation, survey sample, etc.) but most of these are eliminated due to the nature of some of the studies (which were based on twins; for further information on sexual orientation and genetics, see the work of Macke, Tuttle & Pillard, Whittman & Diamond, Levay, Allen & Gorski, etc. If anyone needs full citations for further research, I’ll be more than happy to provide them.)

Boris again says: “In fact, there has been (admittedly, still pretty tentative) evidence that homosexuals indeed have systematically different brains from heterosexuals. There has also been some (still controversial) evidence that sexuality may be genetic.” On the first claim, the evidence I am familiar with is, as you say, “pretty tentative,” and implies something drastically far less “systematically different” than what you think. We know very little about cognitive structures, much less their emergent properties that produce behavior, and even from a reductive viewpoint, the evidence I am familiar with says little, if nothing about how a gay person’s faculties are arranged versus those of a heterosexual’s. (This is easily shown in the failed experiment performed by Macke et al. Macke, J. P., N. Hu, et al. (1993). "Sequence Variation in the Androgen Receptor Gene is Not a Common Determinant of Male Sexual Orientation." American Journal of Human Genetics 53: 844-852, and also see Hamer, D. H., S. Hu, et al. (1993). "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation." Science 261(5119): 321-327.)

Searcher wondered, “I'm not sure how one passes down a trait such as homosexuality, but it's an interesting theory.” Yes, Searcher, I wholeheartedly agree, but because no one really knows how any trait is passed down. Little is known about genetics in general, specifically how certain genes unfold during zygote development, and what chemically constrains gene X to translate to behavior Y.

Boris continued: “Obviously, homosexuality is not an evolutionarily beneficial trait; it is certainly very rarely heritable.” Or is it? Why is homosexuality “not an evolutionary beneficial trait?” Most psychological traits can indeed be reverse-engineered to produce a reasonable explanation for why they were selectively pressured, even if only in small populations. And please don’t answer that it doesn’t contribute to spreading the copies of genes, because most organisms display behavior that doesn’t directly confer Darwinian success (e.g., self-sacrifice, suicide, abstinence, and so on). We understand very little about what makes a trait “beneficial,” and it is tough to say whether certain traits have phenotypic design features that hinder a species’ ability to reproduce. I think I should point out that most cognitive faculties were created for adaptive problems that deal with how an organism makes its living (e.g., what it eats, who it socializes and mates with, how it communicates, and so on). This being the case, nothing prevents a homosexual organism from producing offspring or contributing the survival of the species (in that it is still capable of mating with the opposite sex). In fact, it may be argued that there are certain factors (e.g., social pressures to conform, etc.) that may cause homosexual organisms to reproduce or to contribute to, no matter how indirectly, to the spreading of genes (as evidenced by lesbians that are fertilized with someone else’s sperm, or a gay couple that adopts children. The latter example is an example of behavior that produces Darwinian success). Certainly, the past thirty years of sociobiology / evolutionary psychology has shown that human irrationality is quite ubiquitous, but there has to be a reason why our natural reasoning systems are equipped the way they are.

Lori argued: “But I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us are either born with a vagina or a penis. Right? It's pretty bleepin' obvious. Now what to do with it is the question. Well hello? Can we just simply use a little logic and solid biological principles here or what? I'll answer my own question ok?” Unfortunately, Lori, you failed to provide the answer to your own question, and I’m afraid the answer is not as ostensibly simple as you might think. I’m of the firm belief that such answers require facts, and by facts I mean something that is scientifically verifiable in that it is (i) falsifiable, (ii) reproducible, and (iii) observable. Your question is misstated, and therefore unanswerable. What’s worse, the conclusion you draw is entirely irrational, unless you are of the belief that reality doesn’t matter. I wouldn’t know where to send you first. Try reading the works of E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and any basic biology book you can get your hands on. (If you want to know more, please email me and I’ll be more than happy to explain.)

Lori asks us which options make the most “logical sense,” implying that an intuitive standard, much similar to a watered-down Occam’s razor, would best explain what types of sexual acts one wishes to engage in. Unfortunately, many problems abound. First, seeking out the most logical explanation, especially when trying to link behavioral or physiological traits to natural selection, almost never works. (See the work of Tooby & Cosmides, Gunther Stent, or Steven Pinker) Attempts at reverse-engineering traits most certainly breaks down because there are too many unknown components that may have influenced, in some way or another, why certain traits persist and others do not. Second, there’s a difference between sexual acts and sexuality, one that seems to have slipped her mind. It seems as though she conflates the two, thinking they are practically interchangeable. (Boris deals with this issue very well in the previous post.)

Lori said: “When I view our spiritual laws, I view it as only consisting of ONE set of laws that are universal and ideal. ONE pure truth that is universal and ideal. I'm sorry, but that ONLY makes sense.” Of course, there are probably many features of this universe that are axiomatic, and there are certainly laws that regulate human behavior, but unfortunately for us, we’ll never uncover these rules. It would be arrogant to assume that the human mind was designed to understand the human mind instead of the adaptive problems that popped up again and again in our evolutionary history. I’m partial to the idea (first advanced by people like Gunther Stent, Noam Chomsky, Colin McGinn, and Steven Pinker) that we’ll never be able to uncover any these “grand laws,” simply to lack of brain power.

Lori adds, “We don't all operate under little individually vacuum packed gravitational fields do we?” Despite your misunderstanding of the nature of gravity, this argument is completely non sequitir in that what holds true in one field of science isn’t necessarily relevant to another field, at least in the piecemeal understanding we have of the world.

Lori: “The INTENT of our sexuality is procreation.” Wow. There is a whole body of literature, primarily from Tooby & Cosmides, that deals with the problem of intentionality, and how systems of thought have long been inadequate to explain how there are levels and processes that interfere with a gene’s intent. That is, our sexuality is not necessarily intended for procreation. If this were the case, then everyone would have children, but there are many people who become priests, never have kids, abuse sexuality, and so on. In fact, the only intent we can attribute to our biological design, and much less natural selection, is that there are certain physical constants that constrain the type of biological structures that form (e.g., we develop legs, not wheels). You misconstrue the issue. Differential reproduction (and not necessarily survival) the a driving force behind natural selection. Too many issues to deal with here.

Lori queried: “So my question then to Melissa Ethridge is, so why not?” That’s exactly the point. “Why not” sums up everything perfectly because it reflects how little we know about sexual orientation. There may be millions of reasons that prevent Melissa Etheridge from fucking Brad Pitt, and it’s almost impossible to know if any of them are remotely related to her sexual preference. Can you describe, down to the last detail, the physiochemical processes that enable me to type this message? I doubt it. Physics barely understands how water flows out of your sink, and we’re even more in the dark when it comes to issues concerning human behavior.

On Samus general comment that “humans are no longer a part of the evolution process,” I feel that I should point out that this has often been speculated by a few pariahs in the scientific community, but most serious biologists don’t see this as being the case. If you want to know why, just ask me, I’m your my roommate.

For really good general comments on this issue, please see Boris’ comment before mine (which touches very well on the issue of sexuality versus sexual acts); Flash’s post from the A.P.A.; and Samus’ discussion about attraction.

trotter,

You've challenged quite a few things I said earlier. At the risk of seeing this thread changing topic in mid-stream and becoming a debate between a neuro-reductionist (such as me) and a gestalt psychologist (such as you seem to be), I feel obligated to respond.



Boris commented: "In fact, left-handers have significantly different brain layouts -- which confirms that handedness is not a choice." First of all, handedness can be a choice. Most people are capable of learning to write with other than their dominant limb, of course requiring many hours of practice. Second, to suggest that they have "significantly different brain layouts" is absurd. The differences noted over handedness by most neuropsychologists, much less other traits due to genetic variance, are negligible.


Of course, people can be forced to adapt to just about anything. You can force a person to walk on hands instead of feet from childhood, but that will not constitute a demonstration that the choice of walking limbs is not predetermined. As to brain layout differences, you are simply wrong. I have dug up an old Neurophysiology textbook, and looked up the section on "handedness". Here is an (admittedly lengthy) excerpt:

"Geschwind and Levitsky (1968) drew attention to brain structural assymetry by finding that in 65% of human brains, a region of the cerebral cortex known as the planum temporale is larger in the left hemisphere than in the right. In 11% the right side is larger. In some individuals, the magnitude of this left/right difference is almost 2 to 1. This region contains several auditory association cortices and part of Wernicke's speech area. Lesions of this approximate area usually produce Wernicke's aphasia. Thus, the region includes important components of language networks. Presumably the difference in the size of the area reflects the specialization (dominance) of one cerebral hemisphere for language. The larger left area implies more elaborate development of that side, which might include more nerve cells or greater elaboration of dendrites. <u>This difference in cortical size is even more evident at birth; it appears in 86% of the infant brains examined. This evidence suggests an intrinsic basis for cerebral dominance in language, since the asymmetry appears before any environmental reinforcement of dominance can occur. An MRI study confirms the presence of this asymmetry and its relation to handedness (Steinmetz et al., 1991).</u> <small>(emphasis mine)</small> In these observations, left-handers had less planum temporale asymmetry than did right-handers. <small>(MY NOTE: this is why in left-handers, damage to the left Wernicke's area produces aphasia significantly less often than in right-handers. And in fact, in some left-handers damage to a right-hemisphere mirror image of the Wernicke's area produces aphasia, which does not happen for right-handers. I don't remember where I've seen these results, but be assured they are well accepted.)</small>

Direct anatomical observations and functional measures such as handedness and verbal abilities are not yet available from the same subjects. However, some indirect measures of temporal cortex size can be obtained from arteriograms (X-ray recordings) that reveal the size and course of the middle cerebral artery (Hochberg and LeMay, 1975; LeMay and Culebras, 1972). Of 44 right-handed patients, 86% showed a blood vessel pattern that implied greater left temporoparietal size, but this pattern was seen in only 17% of left-handers. Most left-handers showed no right/left differences.

CT scans reveal size differences in some large brain regions, and these differences can be related to overlying skull shape. Using this technique, LeMay (1977) showed that a majority of right-handers (61%) have wider frontal regions on the right, while only 40% of left-handers exhibit this pattern. In contrast, more left-handers had greater left frontal regions. <u>The differences were more pronounced when only left-handers from left-handed families were compared with right-handers.</u> <small>(empasis mine)</small> Many gross measures of the cerebral hemispheres have revealed anatomic asymmetries, as Geschwind and Galaburda (1985) have summarized. Microscope comparisons of the left and right hemispheres reveal differences in fine structure between the two sides of the brain. The dendritic patterns of neurons in the right and left anterior speech areas are significantly different: cells on the left showed a more complex dendritic tree. <u>This pattern was partially reversed in non-right-handed individuals (Scheibel et al., 1985).</u> <small>(emphasis mine)</small>"



Boris again says: "In fact, there has been (admittedly, still pretty tentative) evidence that homosexuals indeed have systematically different brains from heterosexuals. There has also been some (still controversial) evidence that sexuality may be genetic." On the first claim, the evidence I am familiar with is, as you say, "pretty tentative," and implies something drastically far less "systematically different" than what you think. We know very little about cognitive structures, much less their emergent properties that produce behavior, and even from a reductive viewpoint, the evidence I am familiar with says little, if nothing about how a gay person's faculties are arranged versus those of a heterosexual's.


Well, nobody is claiming to understand "how a gay person's faculties are arranged versus those of a heterosexual's." By "systematic" I meant that the brain differences seem to be consistent with sexual orientation across many individuals. And I did say "tentative", didn't I. But let me once again quote that very same textbook (am I lazy or what? :)):

"Simon LeVay reported (1991) that the POA (preoptic area) of humans contains a nucleus (the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, or INAH-3...) that is larger in men than in women and larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual men... It's possible...that early social experience affects the development of INAH-3 to determine sexual orientation. Furthermore, sexual experiences as an adult could affect INAH-3 structure, so the smaller nucleus in some homosexual men may be the result of their homosexuality, rather than vice versa...

The reports that sexual orientation is heritable (Bailey and Bell, 1993) also do little to resolve the controversy. Estimates are that about half the variability in sexual orientation is due to differences in the genome, which leaves ample room for early social influences. Indeed, this evidence indicates quite strongly that both genetic and environmental influences affect sexual orientation in humans...

From a political viewpoint, the controversy -- whether sexual orientation is determined before birth or determined by early social influences -- is irrelevant. Many religions practiced in Western culture regard homosexuality as a sin that some people choose to commit, and this view forms the prime basis for laws and prejudices against homosexuality. But scientists representing each viewpoint agree that sexual orientation, especially in males, is set very early in life -- by age four or so. <small>(MY NOTE: incidentally, the age of 4 is also the memory cut-off for most people. I.e., most people's long-term memories do not start properly functioning until about the age of 4, meaning that they don't remember anything about their life prior to that age. Which gives more credibility to such statements, as "I have <u>always</u> been homosexual.")</small> Almost all homosexual and heterosexual men report that from the beginning their interest and romantic attachments matched their adult orientation. Furthermore, despite sometimes heroic efforts, no one has come up with a way to change a person's sexual orientation (LeVay, 1993). Thus, all research indicates that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, thus challenging the validity of discrimination against homosexuals."



Boris continued: "Obviously, homosexuality is not an evolutionarily beneficial trait; it is certainly very rarely heritable." Or is it? Why is homosexuality "not an evolutionary beneficial trait?" Most psychological traits can indeed be reverse-engineered to produce a reasonable explanation for why they were selectively pressured, even if only in small populations. And please don't answer that it doesn't contribute to spreading the copies of genes, because most organisms display behavior that doesn't directly confer Darwinian success (e.g., self-sacrifice, suicide, abstinence, and so on). We understand very little about what makes a trait "beneficial," and it is tough to say whether certain traits have phenotypic design features that hinder a species' ability to reproduce. I think I should point out that most cognitive faculties were created for adaptive problems that deal with how an organism makes its living (e.g., what it eats, who it socializes and mates with, how it communicates, and so on). This being the case, nothing prevents a homosexual organism from producing offspring or contributing the survival of the species (in that it is still capable of mating with the opposite sex).


All right, I'll play devil's advocate with myself and buy into your objection. There is just one problem -- I can't imagine how homosexuality could actually be evolutionarily beneficial. Perhaps you can help me with that?

Incidentally, the behavior that "doesn't directly confer Darwinian success" that you mentioned, "(e.g., self-sacrifice, suicide, abstinence, and so on)" actually <u>does</u> confer Darwinian success! That is precisely why such behavior is sometimes selected for. Such superficially "selfless" behavior is nevertheless invariably selfish on the genetic level. Typically, animals only display such altruism when it comes to benefitting their close relatives. In this way, although an animal's own genome may be lost, many of the genes shared with relatives will go on if the animal's death helps the relatives survive. All this discussion is not entirely helpful, however, since (as, it would seem, you personally agree) humans are driven by quite a bit more than just instinct. So, much of our behavior (e.g. abstinence) may not at all be selectable by evolution in the first place, but determined on-line independent of genetics. But either way, note that homosexuality is not an altruistic feature. And in fact, considering the universal spurn of homosexuality in human cultures (even prior to Judaic influences), being homosexual would probably be universally harmful to individuals, and not beneficial to society.



In fact, it may be argued that there are certain factors (e.g., social pressures to conform, etc.) that may cause homosexual organisms to reproduce or to contribute to, no matter how indirectly, to the spreading of genes (as evidenced by lesbians that are fertilized with someone else's sperm, or a gay couple that adopts children. The latter example is an example of behavior that produces Darwinian success).


Sure, it may be possible for homosexuals to reproduce. However, such "Darwinian success" is of little value. Selection of traits concerns itself with <u>beneficial</u> features; the process you describe does not make homosexuality beneficial. All you are saying is that homosexuality is merely a poor substitute for heterosexuality. Given such a weighting, one would expect homosexuality to lose out genetically in the long run. Additionally, as I've been arguing, one cannot think of homosexuality as purely a genetic trait. As mentioned by me and in the excerpts I've quoted above, homosexuality may be just as much (if not more!) developmental than genetic. Of course, one could argue that susceptibility to developmental influences is still genetically dictated -- except that in such a case the "culprits" might more likely be complex ensembles of genes, and thus genetically homosexuality may be very hard to identify (which would be consistent with the present scarcity of genetic evidence.)

<hr>

All this is not to obscure the fact that trotter and I basically disagree with Lori, and agree with each other about the wrongfully perceived arbitrariness of homosexuality as a "choice".

Lori: the bottom line is that if you want to be tolerant, first and foremost you have to be informed. It might help to acquaint yourself with some systematic modern knowledge (rather than exclusively depending on what comes from the religious establishment or your own intuition), before you start passing judgements and advocating social policy.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 07, 2000).]

Greetings!

Okay, I'm very, very, very short on time, and had to skim some of these more scientific posts, 'cause I can't understand 'em. :)

Having said that:

Flash~

You GO girlfriend! Three cheers for being yourself, and having the courage to 'come out' on this message board.

Moving back to the original topic:

Let me start by saying I consider myself to be extremely open minded as far as homo/bi/hetero goes. I generally figure whatever someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business. One of my best friends is gay, my big sister is a lesbian.

I've posted before about the trials and tribulations my buddy went through in high school due to the explosion of homophobia that occured at that time, so I won't rehash that. Let me just say I was affected by it quite a bit, even though I am "straight".

My buddy & I hung out quite a bit together for a couple years in high school - his best friend and mine both had girlfriends/boyfriends, so we ended up "left over" together. We would frequently go out 'guy hunting' together, we always figured if we found one we both liked, if the guy was straight, he was mine. Gay and my buddy could have him. If he was bi we'd just share. :) It was very interesting to see the difference in our taste - somehow I was always attracted to the gay men, and he had a hankering for the straight ones!

One day I asked him about how he felt about women - since he wasn't sexually interested in us fem's, I wondered what his perception was. He spoke at such length about the grace, beauty and strength he sees in women that I practically turned lesbian myself! Well, not really, but you know what I mean. I was sincerely flattered by his description of women. A little unrealistic, he glossed over the 'bitch factor' in my opinion, but very, very sweet nonetheless. This is a man that loves men AND women, but is sexually attracted to men only.

I will admit to being extremely attracted to this friend of mine back then, and let him know in no uncertain terms that if he wanted me, I was his for the taking. At the time, I was a pretty hot chick, if I do say so myself. Sixteen, busty, blonde, slender & tan, I had all the guys I could desire, but of course, I only wanted the one I couldn't have. :) He never laid a hand on me, that way. I slept in his bed, I spent day and night with him, and never, ever did he even hint that he might be interested in the slightest. I massaged his shoulders, I cooked his breakfast. He returned these gestures, but always he was like a brother, or another girl in his 'sexual' behavior with me. (ie - there wasn't any, to my dismay)

So, I don't believe this is a man that "chose" to be gay. I think any 15 year old boy with the slightest heterosexual leanings would have at least gotten a woody with all the..ahem, "attention" I gave him - whether he was interested in me personally or not. My friend, never, ever did. I firmly believe that homosexual is his natural state. And he is not one of the flamers - he doesn't prance, or lisp. He does have an extremely good clothes-sense, and is a talented artist... Well, sometimes he does lisp and prance a bit, that's a good sign there's a guy he's interested in within earshot. :) I think the lisp and such is just a cultural thing - that part is a choice, to my mind. An easy way to let people know of your preferences without having to go into lenthy discussions.

Lori~
Not to pick on you, or anything, but I do have to wonder (along with the others) if you aren't bisexual by nature, but chosing to be heterosexual. Have you thought about it? Of course, there's nothing at all wrong with being bisexual, at least I don't think there is. You can "slap and tickle" anyone you want. LOL.

I appreciate the beauty of the naked body, male and female. I can appreciate the sexuality of a woman, but it is more like I'm trying to picture myself there. Like if I see a porn shot of a couple having sex. I might crave the male, and want to be where the female is. I wouldn't crave the female and want to be where the male was...know what I mean?

MoonCat,

Just an aside:


At the time, I was a pretty hot chick, if I do say so myself. Sixteen, busty, blonde, slender & tan...

I was really surprised to hear this... Didn't you say that you now had the "Morticia Adams" look going?

If so, then... Wow!!! What a switch! ;)

truestory~

LOL, actually I did still dress in the "Morticia" style, but I never was courageous enough to dye my hair black. And since I'm part indian anyway, I could never achieve the pallor appropriate to the "mod" crowd, so I stuck to a tan. Nowadays, I'm too lazy to get all done up, I generally can be found in a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. I save the "Morticia" outfits for when I'm out and about partying (which I do much less often than I'd like). 'Course, nowadays I'm not nearly so slender (like not at all), and my hair is turning a dismayingly dark color - it's nearly brown now. (shrug) Oh well, fortunately I'm not as insecure as I used to be about my appearance, though I sure would like to have my 16-year old body back!! (Who wouldn't?) :)

I for one would NOT, definately NOT, want my 16 year old body back. Geez, the 32 year old version is bad enough. If my boobs were as "missile-esque" as they were back then, I don't care how assertive I was in a board meeting, no one would EVER hear ONE WORD I ever said! What a lifemare!!!! LOL!

And you guys, I haven't mustered up enough energy to respond to your posts regarding my sexuality. Generally, I guess that I'm not surprised that you glossed right over ever legitimate point I made and went straight for the "canning label". So you canned me. Do you feel better? Are you people REALLY that shallow minded? You're thoughts are boring to me, and I'm not saying that to be mean, it's just that you are all so narrow-minded and DISHONEST in your thinking. I firmly believe that the only difference between myself and all of the rest of you on this board, is that I refuse to label myself as anything BUT a WOMAN, and I'm brutally honest with myself, about myself, and about everything. I will comment further later.

Also, Samus, now I want to know who you are!!!!!!!! Tell us, tell us!! Please *sad, puppy dog eyes* *blink, blink*

And also Samus, I under-estimated you, and just wanted to give you a little high five for the non-squirmage regarding the issue. Ah, honesty, like a fresh spring breeze. Thanks. :)

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 07, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 07, 2000).]

Lori,
All anyone did was point out the obvious, Lori. You show signs of being bisexual. Personally, I could care less if you were. It's just the fact that everything you have said describes that of being bisexual. Yeah, someone is in denial alright.
Which is maybe the reason why you have such a hard time understanding why Searcher would NOT want to have "fun" sex with Catherine Zeta-Jones.

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited February 07, 2000).]

EVERYONE, WHEN THEY ARE HONEST WITH THEMSELVES AND IN THEIR MINDS, LOSE ALL OF THE PARADIGMS UNDER WHICH THEY CHOOSE TO OPERATE, SHOW SIGNS OF BEING LABELLED BISEXUAL. I AM NOT A LABEL, I AM A WOMAN. THE ONLY REASON, YES THE ONLY REASON THAT SEARCHER DOESN'T THINK IT'D BE FUN TO HAVE SEX WITH A WOMAN IS BECAUSE HER MIND SET, BEING HER EXISTING PARADIGMS CONCERNING HER SELF AND HER SEXUALITY HAVE NOT ALLOWED HER TO. BUT IT IS A FACT, YES A COLD HARD FACT, THE IF SHE WERE TO OPEN UP HER MIND TO THE POSSIBILITY AND GO INTO THE SITUATION ITSELF WITH AN OPEN MIND AND A GOOD PERSPECTIVE REGARDING THE ACT, THAT SHE WOULD INDEED ENJOY HERSELF JUST AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE, MAN OR WOMAN, LABEL OR NO LABEL. DOES ANYONE UNDERSTAND ME AT ALL??????????? DOES ANYONE CARE TO EVEN TRY???????????? PLEASE TRY, I'M SO MENTALLY BORED!!!!!!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,

I hope you aren't feeling like it's you against the world in this topic.

I understand where you are coming from... Do you remember my position concerning sexual relations between men and women who are married?

However, I also believe that there is a difference in how homosexuality is being perceived here. You seem to be defining sexuality by the sexual "acts" which people participate in. I disagree with your approach. Others have explained that sexuality exists innately in individuals before they ever participate in a sexual "act." I happen to agree with that.

What do you say about someone who has taken a vow of celibacy, who claims to be either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual and who has never actually participated in such sexual "acts"?

How about a heterosexual who participates briefly in homosexual encounters out of curiosity or to dabble in what they might consider to be deviant behavior? Is their sexuality now defined as homosexual or bisexual? Or, are they still heterosexual by nature?

Lastly, what do you say about someone who denies their homosexuality or bisexuality and lives a heterosexual lifestyle out of fear or shame? Are they not still truly homosexual?

Mentally warped is more like it ;)
LMAO Keep talking loudly, Lori...ya just might really convince yourself that you aren't :D

Flash,

Listen, I know that you're not TRYING to hurt my feelings, but what you just posted is very derrogatory, and brings a tear to my eyes, and I'm not kidding. I don't know why I'm surprised...I'm sitting here absolutely BEGGING you to open up your mind a little bit and TRY to understand what I'm saying, and you just flippantly slap some stupid arbitrary label on me and laugh. Well, that may very well be the way you treat yourself, but I would appreciate it VERY, VERY much if you DON'T include me in you close-minded paradigms, cause I refuse to be labeled. I'm a person, and my gender is female. PERIOD. Just because you CHOOSE to DEFINE yourself by your sexuality doesn't mean that I have to. It makes NO SENSE to my brain. I'm sorry, but it's just horse-shit.

TS,


I hope you aren't feeling like it's you against the world in this topic

??? OF COURSE I do, because as usual, it is that way, as it usually is, and I'm kind of getting used to it. Is it frustrating? Yes. Does it make me sad sometimes? Yes. Does that matter? No.


However, I also believe that there is a difference in how homosexuality is being perceived here. You seem to be defining sexuality by the sexual "acts" which people participate in. I disagree with your approach. Others have explained that sexuality exists innately in individuals before they ever participate in a sexual "act." I happen to agree with that.

Ok, yes sexuality has a different definition than sexual intercourse or sexual acts???? I do not believe that a person's sexuality is simply innate. I think that is a big fat generalistic reduction that enables one to virtually blow off the attempt to give this whole topic rational thought. Yes, people precurse sexual "acts" with sexual "beliefs" or "thoughts" that they entertain in their heads. If they CHOOSE to entertain thoughts of themselves in a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex, then they very well can, and yes, I think that everyone resides somewhere along some hormonal (genetic) spectrum that may influence their propensity to engage in such thoughts or have such desires, but I honestly think that they ONLY reason that most of us, gay or straight (and I totally cringe at using those labels) believes it to be such a STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION to entertain these thoughts, is because of the paradigms that we have regarding ourselves in our minds, that usually DO NOT reflect the 100% honest truth. For example, if I were to CHOOSE to sit around and gaze into some girls eyes and have thoughts of a romantic relationship with her, and all of the positive rationalizations of it that I could dream up (and I think it's safe to say with the shit I've been through with men, that's not much of a stretch), that I very well could. And I also think, that while it may be a little awkward or strange to me in my mind at first, that if I were to mentally acclimate myself to the possibility, that it would of course become more "acceptable" to me or more "familiar" to me.


What do you say about someone who has taken a vow of celibacy, who claims to be either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual and who has never actually participated in such sexual "acts"?

I would say that regardless of their actual activity, that they CHOOSE to entertain homo, hetero, or bisexual thoughts in their heads. So? *shrug*


How about a heterosexual who participates briefly in homosexual encounters out of curiosity or to dabble in what they might consider to be deviant behavior? Is their sexuality now defined as homosexual or bisexual? Or, are they still heterosexual by nature?

??? I think that you may have answered your own question here..."dabble in what they might consider to be deviant behavior"...that's where the answer lies TS, in our perceptions. They CHOOSE to label it as deviant behaviour. Why? Because they CHOOSE to label it as such, and for no other reason.


Lastly, what do you say about someone who denies their homosexuality or bisexuality and lives a heterosexual lifestyle out of fear or shame? Are they not still truly homosexual?

Well, for one, I don't think that ANYONE should EVER do ANYTHING out of fear or shame. Two, I don't know how else to say this, so I'm going to just say it over and over again until someone CHOOSES to understand....I believe that the LABELS that you speak of are arbitrary and bogus. Given that, it makes it kind of hard to answer this question, but I'll try anyway, because I SURE DO APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ME. IT MEANS AN AWFUL LOT TO ME. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I MEAN IT. I think that EVERYONE CAN harbor thoughts of lots of a variety of sexual desires, and if there wasn't a God, then my answer would be "do anything that feels good", "anything goes". I mean if there isn't a God, then personally, I think it would be a lot of fun, and I mean physically pleasurable, to dive head first into a massive orgy, and come out 48 orgasms later needin' a mouthwash, douche, enima, and a squeegy to clean up. BUT, there is a God. We KNOW Him, right? ;) Thank you Jesus. And we are well aware through His Word, and through the Holy Spirit, that God gives us EVERYTHING to serve some divine purpose. That purpose is what we should ALL be concerned with understanding.


Um...you guys, I've been thinking of trying to become a preacher or have some type of ministry, or maybe going to school for theology or something along those lines. What do you guys think? Do you think I'd make a good preacher? LMAO! It makes me laugh, for the same reasons that I'm sure it does you. But seriously, I know that I would have to TOTALLY put an ix-na on the otty-pa outh-ma, but beside that???? Just thought I'd ask for funsies. :)


------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 07, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 07, 2000).]

Lori,
Look...I never meant to hurt your feelings at all. How many times have you put things in my face though, saying I'm not facing reality etc... a whole lot.
Did you even read any of the scriptures and explanations which I posted regarding homosexuality? If so..why do you choose to ignore those and still imply that it is wrong? Further, just because one is gay or bisexual doesn't mean that they hold sex above everything...I mean..gee, Lori.

Flash,

Touche. I shouldn't be so sensitive. Maybe I'm being a big pussy. :)


Let me first start out by stating, that I am a lesbian, and I will not be made to feel ashamed or guilty of it, it is not WHO I am, but simply, WHAT I am.

Listen Flash, I know you pretty damn well, and let's make no bones about it, you define yourself by your sexuality, right? I don't. I don't think it's all that rational. I'm sorry, it's not intended to be a put-down, I'm guilty of doing it to myself for a large part of my life, but instead of defining myself as a lesbian, I defined myself as a slut. Why? Cause that's the way other people see me. Why? Cause God happened to make me look like a that Barbie-doll that I was talking about. Do men see me as a sex object and nothing more? Yes. Do women see me that way too, gay and straight? Yes. Why? Because of society's labels that's why. Now do you see why I have a problem with them? If I were to give in to my own "cross to bear", I would be a stripper or a prostitue (a very wealthy one at that) or a porno actress. That's just the way life is. I don't like labels. It's funny, that when a man is actually FORCED in some circumstance to really get to know me....you can just see by the look on his face, all of the neurons and synapses misfiring in his head every time I open my mouth and say something intelligent...for that matter, say almost anything besides "hey big daddy, want me to sit on your lap?" I have to try real, real hard not to let that make me hard and cynical. Actually, if I keep the right perspective about it, it can be quite funny and entertaining. :)



Are you actually trying to say that because I am not attracted to Brad Pitt simply because he is a "MAN", that I am a lesbian???? Or are you saying that BECAUSE I am a lesbian that I am not attracted to Brad Pitt simply because he is a man is what makes me "close-minded" ??

Um, what I think is this...that the ONLY reason that you are not attracted to Brad Pitt is because one, he is a man, and two, you have defined yourself in your mind to be a lesbian, and a close-minded one at that. I mean, we've discussed this at length, and every time a man is even mentioned in a sexual way, you act like it's sickening and IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE AS ENJOYABLE, and yes, I think that is weird, even for a woman who likes to have sex with women.

For example, not too long ago, just in a "girl-friend" kind of way, so that we could kind of goo-goo and ga-ga over something in common, I suggested that you rent and watch my favorite porno movie "The 1968 Elvis Come-back TV Special". YOU FUCKING FREAKED ON ME! I mean you absolutely LOST IT on me!!!! Now, what the fuck is THAT all about, huh? All I was suggesting is that you try to perform some little simple mental exercise regarding some TOTALLY HOT member of the opposite sex, and you TOTALLY FREAKED. I mean, I even thought it might be fun for you and your "partner" to try it together, and then get all worked up and have a good time. See? That's just how my mind works, and you don't understand me at all sometimes. And suffice it to say that regarding this topic, I don't understand your views at all. And not for lack of trying either.
------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 07, 2000).]

You know guys, it just occurred to me, thinking of why it is that we don't tend to understand each others thinking, that I think it's something like this....I'm the kind of person who views life and it's meaning as if it's a mathematical equation or a scientific principle. Most of you I think are the kind of people who view life and it's meaning as some kind of subjective, interpretive, fluffy piece of poetry. See, I didn't do all that well with poetry in school. I was always like, "Well how in the hell do YOU know that's what this guy meant when he wrote that? Because unless he blatently came out and explicitly stated that that is indeed the correct interpretation of this poem, then I can think of about 100 TOTALLY DIFFERENT interpretations just off the top of my head." My teachers just loved me. ;) Let's just say it's a good thing I'm cute and I smile a lot, or it could have been really bad. LOL! Needless to say my English grade would always temporarily drop a bit when we were covering poetry, but I always brought it right back up to a 5 point A with a research paper or two. ;) I hope that helps some. :)

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Flash--

On the one hand, I must thank you for your confidence in the members of this forum. To the other (unless I'm utterly presumptuous), I would hope you could accept my thanks and congratulations in the context that I long for a world in which announcements of one's sexuality no longer require thanks, congratulations, or otherwise. But that all looks to a larger point that's the same I have with racism or sexism. (The persona I have become acquainted with through this board has not changed an iota.) But, since I'm rambling myself into a quagmire, I'll stop here. :cool:

* * * * *

Lori--

Just a quick comment; I quote thee:

* "Listen Flash, I know you pretty damn well, and let's make no bones about it, you define yourself by your sexuality, right?"

Obviously, I cannot speak for Flash as an individual.

However, in general, I would say that most gays & lesbians "define [themselves] by [their] sexuality" inasmuch as, say, you do.

In other words, it's only an identity when it comes up.

* People going out to clubs: when I go out to see a concert or just get flat drunk, I notice that there are a number of people who are dressed "to kill", or otherwise gussied up to impress. Is a heterosexual woman dressed up at a heavy-metal show identifying herself by her sexuality any more or less than the two queers in the corner wearing white belts over beige jeans? (That one was a weird trend in Portland for a while.)

* Political seasons: gays and lesbians identify their sexuality when it's directly challenged; when I lived in Oregon, I would often hear (and I sh_t you not that this is true), "It's not that I have a problem with someone being gay, it's just that they're always out in the streets trying to tell me how glorious it is." I always asked: Gee, do you think they'd be protesting in the streets if we weren't about to vote on whether we can fire them for who they sleep with? or evict them? or deny them access to public property? It works with other perceived deviances, too. After all, religious people threatened to blow up movie theatres showing The Last Temptation of Christ; we also heard the "It's not that I have a problem with witches, but ...." Gee, you protested Last Temptation and you don't know why people are upset about Hocus Pocus? (I actually know several people who took those stances.)

* Media/art: Basic Instinct would have gone by the wayside if it weren't for Sharon Stone's "caught unaware". And even that would have blown over except suddenly it was "Bi-fever" .... Is Basic Instinct a bad movie (my opinion) because it's a bisexual film, or because it was just a bad movie? Yet we argue about whether we should show bisexualism or homosexuality in theatres, and then wonder why so many people stand up and say, "I'm gay, and I'll be damned if you're gonna say I can't see this movie."

Every time you:

* Vote on a sexuality-specific ballot measure,
* say, "I have a lot of gay friends who ....",
* dress for vanity,
* essentially, mention who you would/not sleep with

you are identifying yourself by your sexuality.

If it seems that other people identify themselves solely by their sexuality, I would ask at what points in their life you have encountered them; what are the extenuating circumstances?

Look at your neighbor across the street. How does your interrelationship with this person change if you discover or are told that this person is homosexual? Look at ten people you know to be heterosexual; one of them, statistically speaking, should be gay. (Yes, I know about lies, damned lies, and statistics, but it's just an illustration to the point.) Which one is gay? Does it matter? (Why should it matter?)

If Flash--as the current example goes--is an accountant, and spends much time buried in the materials of her work, someone who knows her from that aspect might think she was identifying herself by the amount of money she makes for herself, or moves for her company ... or something like that. For the amount of pot I smoke, I'm surprised so few people have accused me of identifying myself by my drug habits; of course, that might be because, by the same standard, so would most of the people who would know enough about my consumption to begin saying those things. But I'm hoping you get the point.

If we were talking about nuclear physics, and we were identifying ourselves by our relationship to a theory ...

* I have a Nuclear Physics degree ....
* I read about that theory at Exosci :D
* I remember when my Dad was doing fission reaction chains at Los Alamos ....
* I baked sugar cookies last week using Sweet & Low, and you can't tell the difference.

Now, even I'll admit a more-than-casual relationship between sugar cookies and the processes of the sun ... but, in general, which of the above doesn't fit? Are the other three people "identifying themselves" by their nuclear physics?

Sure, some homosexuals are flamboyant about their sexuality, but how is that any different from the village slut, or Boy-Toy George?

People generally only identify themselves by specific criteria because they've been asked to.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

Lori,

I believe I understand where you're coming from. Labels aside:

Speaking from my own human experience, I do NOT believe that people "choose" the gender(s) or the type(s) of bodies, minds and souls that they are attracted to... I think that attraction factor(s) come "naturally" to each individual. That is, an individual is "naturally" attracted to (or NOT attracted to) certain attributes in other individuals. Someone cannot simply "choose" to be attracted to the opposite gender if it is not their "natural" state.

Yes, Jesus gave us laws for marriage between a man and a woman and laws concerning abiding by the sacred marriage vows. He preached against adultery and divorce after such vows are taken. He also preached against lusting for another's spouse.

Although Jesus preached that marriage between man and woman was the "ideal" He also taught that there were some who were not capable of marriage. One of the reasons He stated was because some people were born incapable of marriage. He indicated that whoever of these "could" accept celibacy "should" take the vow of celibacy but He also told the disciples that celibacy would not be possible for everyone.

Jesus' teachings focused on living in right relationships through love. Jesus taught that even a prostitute who was righteous would enter heaven while a priest who was not righteous would not (the righteousness that He spoke of had nothing to do with their sexuality, marriage or celibacy - it had to do with love of one's fellow man). Jesus also explained that when we rise from the dead, we are neither married nor given in marriage to anyone.

*Sigh* We can disagree about this 'til doomsday, Lori... What I believe it comes down to is this, on which I'm sure we both agree:

Yes, we have been given many divine gifts. The most important gift that we have been given, however, is the divine gift of salvation for the living through Jesus Christ.

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Peace.

Tiassa,

I think we may have just had a break-through. I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you just posted, and I like a little nip of the wacky-weed myself. ;) Eureka! *falling off chair*

*back up now* I just don't believe that people SHOULD necessarily define themselves or others by their sexuality, just like I said like over and over....and yea, people do that with lots of things all the time, but you'd have to agree with me that their perceptions may not and often do not reflect the truth, and may serve to limit them in their thinking and options and possibilities in life regarding everything. I'm just saying that I'm all about total honesty, whatever that may be. For example, to put it in a different light...math and science and do they call that left-brained stuff?...have always been very very easy for me. I used to smoke a lot more of the stuff back in college, and I took the entire class stoned and got A's right? So, I think that I've been kind of lazy about using these things to define who I am. Now I don't like my job cause it's boring!!! I shouldn't be surprised. I've been operating under one of my own paradigms as well for a long time that's caused me problems, and that is that men can't be trusted. I know that it's been a big part of who I am and the choices I've made and the problems I've had. And guess what? I made the whole thing up, due to my particular circumstance in life. Yes, it's true that a lot of men can't be trusted, but it's not true that all of them can't, and it's not true that I should just avoid trying to find one who can. I think that's kind of a cop out, don't you? Well now, here I am at 32, no kids (that I haven't killed) yet, staring at a divorce, and a really good job that I can't stand. Yea, I'm independent all right, and I'm alone too. Do you know what I really want? To be loved, to be a wife, and to be a mother. It's funny because even when I was very little, and growing up, other girls were always thinking and pretending and actually planning to be wives and mothers. I always kind of thought it was strange that I really never pictured myself that way. I was always too pumped up about my latest scholastic achievement or new job or promotion, the house I bought myself, whatever. I always kind of thought of men, unfortunately, in the same way that a lot of men think of women; as sex objects. Believe me, that hasn't done me any favors.

Oh yea, and I was the big haired metal chick dressed to the hilt for a concert. :) Funny, funny, you just gotta laugh. I went to see Metallica maybe two years ago, like for the 10th time or something, and it struck me so hard during this one song called "Creeping Death". It's a song about a plague. Anyway, there's this part where the lyrics are "Die! Die!" a few times over, and everyone is singing along with fists in air, and I'm looking around thinking, "Damnit, I can't deny it any longer. I'm too old to be here!" Oh well!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 07, 2000).]

TS,

I guess it all boils down to...you tend to think of it as an inherent trait that one is at the mercy of, and I think that it always comes down to a consious choice. I think that we are certainly all at the mercy of our own genetics and hormones, and like I said, we're all somewhere on that spectrum. I think that there are also a lot, and I mean a lot of environmental circumstances that come into play as well. I've known a lesbian that flat out told me that the only reason she was one was because she had been in a very physically abusive marriage and was just plain scared to death of men. I know it's not always that cut and dry. I know that you guys think I'm oversimplifying things here. But when you truly look at my faith, it boils down to something that is best described as an ideal and sinless state of existence that we should all strive to achieve, even though right now for us, we won't get there until we pass on. I'm not saying that there aren't homosexual relationships that aren't more healthy and strong and monogamous or loving or trusting or whatever than heterosexual ones. It's just that with anything, with any decision that you're trying to make, the more variables that you factor into the equation, the greater the set of possible answers. And you know, when you look at the laws of the OT and the NT, that's not what I get the impression of our faith to be about. Is it about tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, respect, love? Yes. But it is about relativity? No, it's not. The way that I think about it is kind of like this. Maybe because of my genetics, and I know that partly because of my parental influence, I can get "wrathful" in my anger. I think that everyone can to one degree or another, but I seem to be pretty bad about turning into somebody's worst nightmare. And you know, as far as I can tell, there have been some people in this world that have absolutely pushed me to the limits with the meanness, BUT I honestly believe that acting out in anger is NEVER the IDEALLY CORRECT way to behave, regardless of a hormonal predisposition, or your drill sargent father, or what assinine cruel thing the big fat meanie did to piss you off, it's STILL NOT RIGHT TO ACT OUT IN ANGER. And yes, I think that some people have more of a NATURAL PROPENSITY to act out in anger, and it may be more of a struggle in life for them because of it, but I honestly think that all that means is that they have to try harder regarding this particular thing. And I also know that if they were to pray to God in Jesus name to help them, that He most certainly would. He helps me, and you guys see what a freak I am. :D By the way TS, are you keeping your sense of humor??? *fingers crossed*

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Am I keeping my sense of humor? Well, yeah, sure... You should have seen me laughing when I got to the latter part of your last post... I'm sitting here laughing and thinking... Is she saying what I think she's saying??? You've gotta be kidding me???!!!

I'm sorry, Lori, I don't mean any offense... I just found what you said to be hysterical. :D Do you seriously believe that anyone who engages in non-heterosexual activity is acting out of anger. Please... say it ain't so!

ROTFLMHO!!!

Lori--

You're never too old for Metallica. I actually wish I could have appreciated that band more when Cliff Burton was alive & playing. As a result, I've never seen 'em live, and the Gods of Metal are now ... I don't know what, but they're doing Whiskey in the Jar, which sounds pretty good if your name's not Metallica, and making videos with Anton Corbjin, which disappoints me greatly. (When I see a film called "Barbarella, Queen of the Universe," I expect loin-clad blonde bimbos and lots of leg; when I see a band called "Metallica", I expect heavy music, not chic-heroin art statements.)

But I digress .... :cool:

But you're never too old for Rock and Roll. And if you ever think you're "too old" to be here, just comfort yourself that the whipper-snappers are "too young" to fully appreciate what they're seeing.

Okay, since I have nothing on-topic, as such, I should be clearing out of this corner.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

TS,

Oh no! No, I was just using the anger thing as an analogy!!! I'm sure that most homosexual relationships are based on the same things that heterosexual ones are, and there can be a bevy of differents things to base said relationship on regardless. Well, I'm very glad to see you're still laughing. *BG* I know that I can be an antagonist and a little exagerated sometimes. :)

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,

Phew!!! Thanks for clearing that up! :)

Anyway, back to the first part of your last post:


I guess it all boils down to...you tend to think of it as an inherent trait that one is at the mercy of, and I think that it always comes down to a consious choice.

Maybe you can see it as a conscious "choice" because you are not only attracted to one gender and you have the option of making a conscious choice? Given what you've explained previously, maybe you are naturally attracted to the act of "sex" rather than a specific gender? And, in your relationship with Jesus Christ/God you know that you must make a choice - within the "ideal" of marriage which was taught because you have that option.

If that's the case, then that works for you... "relative" to your natural sexuality.

What about the person who is only attracted to one gender? Take myself, for example... I don't have a natural "choice" because I am only sexually attracted to one gender.

What if my natural "one gender" attraction happened to be that of the same sex? Do you believe that I "must" then take a vow of celibacy?

I don't think so. I think that in this case, sexuality IS relative since celibacy might be the way for some to go in their relationship with Jesus Christ if they are only attracted to the same gender. However, I do not think that celibacy is an absolute law for those who are ONLY attracted to the same sex because, first, vows must be taken willingly (not forced) and, second, Jesus Christ explained that "neither" marriage nor celibacy is for everyone.

Salvation is for everyone.

Lori,

I'm sorry if these "labels" offend you. I understand exactly what you mean; I was equally offended when, upon arriving in America, I was immediately classified as "Caucasian". What?! I said, I'm not from the Caucasus! I'm Russian, and my family background is Jewish, and I am not pledging allegiance to any nationality other than American! But no matter; I've been a "caucasian" ever since... I still feel strongly about the practice of labeling people according to race or heritage; it's a bit like labeling cattle. I guess America still hasn't gotten past its racist roots. And by now, I'm digressing...

There is nothing pleasant about labels. But in this case, it is not just a matter of slapping on labels. What I, at least, was trying to tell you, is that your perspective does not equal the perspective of everyone else. You seem to be under a rather naiive assumption that everybody thinks and feels the same way you do, only they are not being honest with themselves. Well, that is just not the case! Do you know what goes through the mind of a serial killer as he stalks his next prey? Do you know what it feels like to free-float in space? Do you know what it feels like to give birth to septuplets? Of course you don't. You can't possibly! You can't even pretend to imagine what any of these things are like. The same goes for other people's sexuality. It is YOU who is being overly simplistic in assuming that all people are hooked up in the same way (i.e., like you.) There is much more diversity in the human psyche than you seem ready to acknowledge.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

TS,

Uh, no not exactly. I do think that it's pretty clear in my faith that you should either be married or celibate, but I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with who it is you're attracted to and why. Quite honestly, I think that people who say that they are naturally and inherently (magically) limited in their capability to be attracted to one particular thing for one particular reason is full of crap. There are many reasons to be attracted to someone as a sex partner aside and regardless of gender. I just think that for crying out loud, can't ANYTHING be a given? I am a firm believer TS, that if let's say you didn't physically look as "girlie" as you do now, or maybe had a smidge more testosterone than the average woman, and maybe if you didn't fit in in school with all of us cliquey-prissy-stuck up girls, or maybe you're dad or some male influence did a real number on you, or geez, I could go on and on with such a wide description of variables to throw in the mix I could go on for pages. Anyway, say that for a lot of reasons, and legitimate reasons ok, you were to THINK about women in a different way. You began to open your mind to a woman being a sex partner for you. I'm telling you TS, if the circumstance was right, you would have absolutely no problemo. It's NOT inherent. I mean EVERYTHING is inherent to one degree or another, but in this case, unless you're a morphodite, the line is drawn pretty clear. I think that MoonCat's friend probably did fantisize about her but probably just wouldn't admit it. It seems to take a lot of "talking yourself into" to be a homosexual, and that makes sense to me, but I also think that leads to an improper paradigm to exist in said homosexual's mind. That being that it can be no other way. We all know, especially us women, that what goes on in your HEAD determines a lot of what goes on in your body. If you continually say to yourself "It's impossible for me to be with a woman, or a man", then it's entirely possible that you'll talk yourself right into it. I also think that if MoonCat's friend had set his paradigm aside for a while and CHOSE to see MoonCat in a different light, he would have been one happy, and well taken care of man. :)

And TS, it's not that I think of sex as some exercise and don't attribute any emotional feelings with it either. I think that's a sin too. But, I do think that sex and love are totally non-dependent upon one another. Is sex better when you're thinking happy thoughts? Yes, it definately is. But what those happy thoughts consist of may be entirely relative.

How about throwing another log on the fire here, by pointing out that Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed. The whole paradigm about physical beauty and sexuality and physical attraction takes on a whole new meaning when you think about this aspect. Apparently in the garden, people could walk around totally naked and no one had any lustful or adulterous thoughts. Interesting huh? I just don't think that sex is supposed to be about what someone looks like or some physical attribute, even gender. Like I said, gender is just a given in my mind.

I honestly think that homosexuals and heterosexuals alike that think that it's impossible for them to have a relationship with a different gender than what they're used to are all having a big head trip. I think it's nonsense, and I think it's all subjective to a whole host of variables that couldn't possibly be covered here, but it's definately safe to say that it's not inherent and magical. *poof*

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Ok guys, I'm really trying here, are you trying to tell me that you think it's possible for a person to be genetically "programmed" so to speak in such a way that it is impossible for them to have a romantic, loving, or sexual relationship with someone of the same or opposite sex? I think that's total bullshit, sorry. Absolute hog-wash. I mean are you trying to say that some people just can't say I love a man, or I love a woman. I can say both. I try to love everyone the same, now that isn't realistic in practice due to proximity and circumstance, but it is in theory. The only thing that makes love romantic is the sex! So are you then saying that it's genetically possible that some people are not capable of enjoying sex with a man or a woman? Bullshit, I think that we've covered that. It's all one big head trip. These are the facts...women have certain traits that make them sexually attractive, and I don't think it's possible for a man or a woman to be "born blind" to that. Men have certain traits that make them sexually attractive, and I don't think it's possible for a man or a woman to be "born blind" to that. But here's the thing...I think that those very traits are what is supposed to be shared between men and women. I think it's important. Like in the grand scheme of things. I don't just think it's arbitrary. I think it serves a very important purpose if we let it and if we all behave ourselves and have pure intentions towards one another in our relationships. It's like ying and yang you know? Ying ying and yang yang I think are not just futile, but in some way actually detrimental in the grand scheme of things, as are plenty of other things (and they're all deemed sinful, it's all very complicated, intertwined, and large, as someone put it). I think that what happens when a man and a woman do come together within the purest of intentions, it IS MAGIC. And that's appropriate when you consider the potential natural response to such a union.

So Flash,

Are you saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to love a man? Are you saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to enjoy having sex with a man? Are you saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to cohabitate with a man? What? And/or why? Help me here. Are you saying that you think this is because of some genetic disposition????? I'm sorry, but that is just way too far of a stretch to me. I just do NOT understand. I swear, I'm really trying too. Please explain. Well, actually, if you don't want to explain, that's fine too since this is all very personal, but if you do, that would be great. :)


------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

And I just thought of something else. Do you know how back in the Old Roman Empire, sexual practices were EXTREMELY liberal, and a lot of that practice was homosexual in nature? Do you know why that was? Well, for a fact, it was NOT because of some genetic predispostioning. It was because it was common and totally acceptible in that society to view sex as an act of power and dominance. It didn't matter so much what gender a person was, what mattered most was who was on the giving (submissive) end, and who was on the receiving (dominant) end. And no, I don't think that power and control are supposed to be what sex is about either. But do you see how one's perceptions regarding sex change all the rules? And do you see just how subjective our own perceptions are? I do.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,


Why do most gay men talk like valley girls with a lisp?

I think MoonCat hit the nail on the head with this one - when they do that, they are most likely advertising in their own way.


Why is the Ford Explorer somehow deemed "the lesbian mobile"?

Beats the heck out of me - this is the first time I've heard of such a thing. What do they say about women who drive Ford F250's (yup - that's what I drive)?


Why do many lesbian women try to look so much like men? From the attire, the hair-do (or lack there-of), the wallet vs purse thing, the no make-up thing. Especially if men sexually repulse them sooooooo much? Seems kind of contradictory doesn't it????? Same for all you gay drag queens with fake tits out there??? What the? Why put a fake set of tits on a man so you can doink him up the butt, wouldn't it be a hell of a lot easier for everyone if you just doinked a women? It makes NO SENSE.

Some lesbian women may have more testosterone than their more feminine sisters, which might also partially explain their homosexuality. I don't think they are "trying to look like men" - but for those who do, I think their testosterone levels dictate that. I don't think lesbians are repulsed by men - where do you come up with this stuff? Lesbians are not sexually attracted to men - this does not necessarily equal repulsion.

The same things can be said about gay men - they aren't necessarily trying to look like women (though some do). My brother, as I previously mentioned, is gay. He actually started growing breasts in his teens. My mother blames some hormones she took during her pregnancy to prevent miscarriage, but who knows? For whatever reasons, he definitely doesn't seem to have the same testosterone levels as straight men.


Oh and excuse me but I think that you may be telling a little fib ok? Do you mean to say that if you were to imagine having "sex", and I'm using that term liberally here, with Catherine Zeta-Jones, or that if she were to do a little slap and tickle on you that you wouldn't get turned on?????? I think that you're fibbing. So why is it that you WOULDN'T have sex with her? Why not? I think it would be fun.

I got in late on this one, so everyone else has pretty much beaten me to the punch here. I really do think you have some strong bisexual tendencies, Lori. I don't have a problem with that at all, except where you are projecting your own personal issues onto me. If I had said that I thought the Corvette was a beautiful car, would you ask me if I ever fantasize about jumping on the gear shift??? If I had said that I thought horses were beautiful animals, would you suggest I had bestial tendencies? Probably not, because those aren't likely to be your own personal issues. (Flash - thanks for sticking up for me here, buddy! :) )

Lori, you really do seem to be hung up on sexuality for some reason - your own, as well as others'. Why is this such a focal point in your life?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

And one more thing, then I promise I'll give it a rest. What about if it's just a certain attraction that one man or woman has to certain given traits. And these certain traits are usually deemed somehow "male" or "female" in nature right? BUT, both traits can be potentially DESIRED BY and/or EXHIBITED BY EITHER sex. I mean that IS the truth. There are women who exhibit feminine and masculine traits and men who exhibit feminine and masculine traits, and yea, there is a spectrum within each gender. Ok, now follow me here, if that indeed is true, doesn't it make it IMPOSSIBLE to say that it's IMPOSSIBLE for one to be entirely heterosexual or entirely homosexual???? I mean, for example, I've dated men before that seemed for a variety of reasons to fall on the feminine side of the male spectrum. I mean, it could be something as simple as the way he crosses his legs or mannerisms of that nature. Also his disposition. I remember feeling strange because this one guy was so sensitive and such a great listener, that I felt like I was sleeping with my girl-friend. That weirded me out. Why? Cause I guess I've always labeled myself a heterosexual, that's why. A man-eater to be more exact. But to tell you the truth, the men that come to mind here were really really nice guys. And they were also very very good in bed and not "gay" at all. As a matter of fact, and I think that this is extremely creepy, there are two such men that come to mind here, and don't you know that both of them, yes both of them, got engaged and married to the next girl that they dated after I dumped them for some sexy testosterone filled jerk? The only reason I didn't find them attractive was because of some stupid perception problem of my own. And here I am all surprised that I'm married to an insensitive jerk. It doesn't take a rocket scientist here...I could have tried a lot harder. Ok, I'm pooped. *I can almost hear the collective sigh of relief* :)

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Flash,


In regards to your question of Brad Pitt I only want to know.. Does he have a sister??????

Yup, apparently so. Name's Julie (nickname Jules), according to one source. ;)

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Ok then Searcher, if physical beauty doesn't make you "hop on the gear shift" then what does exactly???? All I'm saying is that it's kind of ridiculous to try to reduce it all down to someone's gender. And I in no way shape or form think that makes me a bisexual. Listen, all I have simply done in my mind is to try to put myself into a lesbians place. Which is a nice little exercise that you may all, homo and hetero alike may like to try sometime. It happens to foster open-mindedness, empathy, and enlightenment. As a matter of fact, it is the very same exercise that I presumptuously suggested that Flash do with Elvis. *BG* Ah, Elvis...but anyway, I simply do not think that the majority of people are open-minded enough for it to even occur for them to do it, and I also do not think, rather I know that the majority of people it does occur to for whatever reason are too close-minded to even attempt it. But I am telling you, that if you are to imagine the right mixed bag of perception and circumstance into a sexual fantasy, you can come up with all kinds of things, and a homosexual relationship is one of those things. I'm saying that there are quite a numerous amount and a wide variety of mixed bags of circumstance and perception that can lead a person to see being with a man or woman as a "right" or a "natural" thing to do. It's just all totally subjective. Everything that is except the sex organs and the babies.

And please stop calling me a bisexual. I would never have sex with a woman because I think it's futile and counter-productive. I would never even think of giving up one single second of being with a man. Damn, I think I'd give my right arm about now but...it's all about a choice.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,


Ok then Searcher, if physical beauty doesn't make you "hop on the gear shift" then what does exactly???? All I'm saying is that it's kind of ridiculous to try to reduce it all down to someone's gender.

Although I admire physical beauty as much as the next person, whether the object of my admiration is a person, a car, an animal, a beautiful landscape or sunset - whatever, it takes more than physical beauty to arouse me sexually. To start with, I require a human male - and a masculine one at that. I prefer a big, strong man - it's not very appealing to me having my arms around a man I fear will break when I squeeze him!

But physical attributes are much less important to me than personality characteristics. Although I like a big, strong man, gentleness and sensitivity are a must! Not to mention loving, caring, trusting, giving...oddly enough, the man I'm describing here is the same one I've been married to for about 20 years now! :)

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Zappers,


Searcher
***********
Good show. I'd like to say here that you posted some great responses in another topic that Flash posted that inpressed me greatly.
When time permits I'll do a post on it. I was really moved by some comments you made.

Thanks! And I must say, I'm intrigued! :)

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Lori,
Whoa..I'll respond better tomorrow.. I just read through all this stuff...

I would never have sex with a woman because I think it's futile and counter-productive. I would never even think of giving up one single second of being with a man. Damn, I think I'd give my right arm about now but...it's all about a choice.
ahhhhhh!!!!! Listen to yourself!!!!!!
If this is all so true...about thinking it's futile and counter-productive...why are you wanting a guy now so bad??? To have a baby?????? :rolleyes:
I..I'll reply tomorrow!

Lori,

There is no need to talk about Adam and Eve; even today there exist certain indigenous tribes (in the tropics) that go naked as a matter of everyday life. And they don't get turned on by skin (because they are so used to it.) We, on the other hand, are socially conditioned to be aroused by nudity.

And I think you do have a valid point about the flexibility (especially early in life) of the human psyche. However, such flexibility is not absolute. As a prime example, consider, once again, the failure in Russia of the Communists' attempts to program people from birth with certain ideals and tendencies so as to make all members of society 100% productive. Obviously, that didn't work out very well.

And it is true that old Romans used to routinely engage in homosexual relationships; it's even true that old Greeks used to routinely and openly engage in paedophilia. So to a certain degree, social standards on sex are indeed subjective. However, they are not such when it comes to <u>personal</u> standards. The society may decide for you what's OK and what isn't, but that is not going to make much difference for your own preferences. All changing social norms do, is give more freedom to one segment of society over another. They can also coerce people into certain behaviors -- but that does not mean that such behaviors are what the people would prefer if they did not face any restrictions.

You keep saying that it's hard for you to imagine how people could be "genetically programmed" for sexuality. Well, I disagree with this overemphasis on genetics. Actually, (and given much scientific evidence) I tend to believe that most personality traits are not set by genetics, but by the environment during early development (including prenatal development.) It is a common misconception to assume that genetics completely determines our form and function; our maturation environment is at least as involved as our genome in shaping who we are.

You say it's hard for you to swallow that different people might have differing preferences for sexual orientation. But why is it any easier for you to accept that some people like math, say, while others hate it? Would you say that such aptitudes are also merely a matter of choice?

If we were androids manufactured on an assembly line, then perhaps we would indeed all think alike. But of course, that is not so. We not only all look different, we also like different things and think differently. There really is no such thing as a universally applicable characterization of the human experience; human experience is in its very nature subjective.

It is admirable of you to try and imagine yourself in a lesbian's shoes, and try to figure out what that is like. However, you will never succeed in that endeavor -- because no matter what you imagine, it will still be <u>you</u> and not somebody else. You are trying to project your own preferences and perceptions, your own values and conceptual frameworks, upon everyone else. While such an enterprise might be justifiable in the fields of math or science, it is futile (to say the least) when applied to psychology. Introspection and empathy are two very, fundamentally, distinct beasts -- and one can never substitute for the other.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Here's a theory I've had for a few years regarding homosexuality's place in a healthy society...

I am beginning to wonder if homosexuality could be a symptom of an overcrowded region. It seems to me that homosexuality might have been designed to help ease population pressure - the more crowded any area gets, the harder it gets to survive there, right? Especially if you think in pre-industrial terms, small tribes and such. Too many babies begins to equal too little food, too much work, too many gatherers spending time giving birth and raising very young infants, and could very well put a huge strain on a small tribe. Now that we are in an "advanced" society and have machines and mass production, "modern" medicine etc. - our planet is becoming overcrowded very quickly. What if Mother Nature's way of fixing this problem is to flip the "homo" switch in our genes more frequently - more non-reproducing adults would possibly help ease the crowding...? Of course there are still lesbian couples that give birth to their own child(ren), but I think a lot of gay couples that have children adopt them.

Of course we're not all slaves to our genetics, but I think we might be heavily influenced by such a genetic predisposition. We are all subject to millions of rules and laws and such that we don't even notice, every single day. The force of gravity, the laws of inertia, ageing, etc. I think that we are definitely influenced by our genes on a daily basis. Poor Lori is saddled with a "tootsie" body, I am saddled with my grandmother's thick ankles...(trade ya', Lori! :) ) These things are definitely there, and affect our personalities, to varying degrees. Because Lori is used to having men leer at her and therefore not hear a word she says, I'm sure she has developed a certain way of speaking that gets their attention - it might be a tone of voice, an inflection on certain sylables, perhaps she gestures with her hands to catch their eye...minute things that don't really change her core personality, but are directly influenced by her genes. I tend to view sexuality as the same kind of thing. For some, I do certainally believe it is a genetic predisposition. I really don't think my friend just convinced himself to be gay, I think he just was wired that way. Like I said, a fifteen year old boy has a certain body part that tends to...ahem, make itself noticed...when they become aroused in the slightest. I think that even if he had convinced himself mentally he was gay, but still had the latent cravings for a female, his "indicator" would have "popped up". (Wooo, what a sly euphamism, huh?) I don't know any man that has mental control over that part of their bodies, especially not 15 year olds!! :)

Very good point, MoonCat!

Dam, you might know I’d be busy as heck while a good debate has
been going on. I’ve not been able to keep current and hope I don’t just
repeat what has already been said.
I’m not sure I buy that Lori is bisexual, or lesbian. I’ve read several
times that many straight people have homosexual fantasies. I guess
this theory implies that the degree and frequency would have to dictate
where someone really fits in the scheme of things. I really don’t
remember what the final analysis was right now. I sometimes think
Lori says what she does in this forum for shock value, and this may be
the case in some of the stuff she has posted about sexual subjects she
has addressed in the past. And heaven knows she has a huge
tendency to label and name call herself, which dumfounds me when
she gets so upset when someone strikes back or simply makes the
same kind of statements she does. Maybe this is one of those "do as I
say, not as I do" situations.
I’d like to respond to a statement someone made about gay men and
women generally being obvious. I live in a neighborhood somewhat
like the Village in NY, only on a small scale in the mid west. In fact I was
attracted to this area since I couldn’t get to NY and I have always been
attracted to the Bohemian and what I choose to call interesting type of
people. At any rate prior to this area becoming a Yuppie slum area (by
that I mean an area where up and coming snobs, and those trying to be
up and coming live) many types of people lived, including gays. In fact
the gays should be given credit for bringing this area back to a very
nice area to live. At any rate it has been my observation from exposure
and meeting many of the gay people who lived around here that most
of the men and women were not the type you could simply point at and
say ‘that one is gay’. Of course there are some of men and women who
you could tell because of the way they presented themselves and
others who simply made no secrete about it. But for the most part this
was not the case.
Like Lori and others have stated, I don’t like labels. For the most part It
misrepresents the people labeled and many times cause great
prejudice and physical harm to those who are labeled. I really wish to
hell that Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson could experience all the pain,
hurt and physical violence they have cause many good people who
were simply different. Prejudice is simply not acceptable on any level
and I could care less how they are anybody interpret their faith and
approach to people who are simply different.

Boris
********
I like your posts. Your pretty well read. Wish I had your ability to keep
facts in my head that you seem to able to do. I admire that since I
wasn’t born with that trait and really wish I had it. I do good to take the
same route to work from day to day. Mind you I’m not crying and saying
I’m stupid since I know from IQ tests I’m just point from going above normal , but I have a couple of learning disabilities that make it difficult for me, and you might know I’m interested in the things that require strong concentration like
religion, quantum physics, and psychology just to name a few. Wish I
could have been happy reading the comic books, but no........... I had to
make it difficult for myself.

Searcher
*************
I like your kind of Christianity. You don’t seem to have this ‘ I’m a
Christian and know it all’ approach to dealing with people. Your form of
Christianity is what my idea of what the Gospels were all about.
I’m still on a stand off as to the Bible being the true and final word on
the subject of God, but I have no problem with your approach and was
moved by something you posted about what was in the Gospels. Sorry I
don’t have time to go back and find it now, but I was moved by it.

Lori
******
Sorry to pick on you as I did in a prior post, but you seem to have no
compassion for people who are different or believe a different way. And
you try to ripe the balls or tits off anybody in your way when you come. You do come back at times and say I'm sorry, but how many times are you going to believe this from someone who continuelly puts people down.in this forum. I’m no physiologist but I think you do have a problem
with anger and interacting with people on even ground. I don’t care
where your coming from or what you have to say, the way you come on is no way to treat and act toward people regardless of what your message is. .
Anyway you have my support so long as you don’t try and make the other guy look like a ass. I don’t like that out anyone, even myself, and I
realize I too have problems. My writing skills are somewhat limited
compared to most of the people here and I will use vulgar language to
make a point. This isn’t nice and I deserve soap in my mouth for doing
so............. , and I bet you’d like to be the one to do it..................

I think true homosexuality is genetically predisposed. I also think that true sexual deviancy is genetic in nature.
However, I also believe that pressure or releaseof by Society and religion can and does affect the frequency and volume of HS/SD one way or another.
During certain periods, when moral constraints are lax, it is easier for a society to accept alternative forms of sexuality. When this happens, people being people, will venture into the wild side to check out the fruits so to speak, simply because they are accessible and therefore more acceptable.
It doesn't mean that they are all true HS/SD's, in many cases it is probably just a passing phase that they grow out of.
The thing is, that some people are just very highly sexed. Once people like this have shaken off their moral constraints, they can do virtually anything in the name of lust. Whether it's HTS, HS or SD it doesn't matter. I think most people would be far more sexually adventurous and deviant if there was absolutely no stigma attached to it by family and society.

... http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

Regarding a quote of Tab's (though not directly aimed as such):

* "During certain periods, when moral constraints are lax, it is easier for a society to accept alternative forms of sexuality. When this happens, people being people, will venture into the wild side to check out the fruits so to speak, simply because they are accessible and therefore more acceptable. It doesn't mean that they are all true HS/SD's, in many cases it is probably just a passing phase that they grow out of."

I can't speak for lax morals, per se, but I did want to recount a story as it was told to me:

* It seems to me that the first thing I heard about Basic Instinct was the marvellous up-close-and-personal we get with Sharon Stone's vagina. Whatever storms this brought about, the resulting fallout might have had some unexpected consequences. Parents, alarmed at sexuality, and then at bisexuality, apparently freaked out in some places. A woman I dated told me that at her rural-Oregon high school, bisexuality became popular among the girls after B.I. was released. This, I'm told, was not at some fantastic suggestion of the film, as several of my girlfriend's friends had not seen the film when they participated in an alleged bisexual orgy. As two people associated with that story remember it, it was more the idea of the perceived deviance ... it had more to do with challenging parental mores than it did with true sexual expression or wanting to be like Sharon. In fact, its only association I see to true sexual expression is that I do know three people who became comfortable with their sexuality after having a big media flare-up removed from their own person.

Of course, I'm not a potentially bisexual woman, so I don't have any sense of empathy toward Sharon Stone's character.

But that's only one story, and alas, I missed the occasion myself. But I'm wondering what would have happened had any of the six girls alleged to have taken part in this wild night had actually seen the film.

Of course, they all went to see the film the next day. Or so the story goes. :cool:

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

OT:

Zappers,

You wouldn't believe it, but I have a very similar problem to yours. I retain things extremely well over the short term, but all that knowledge simply doesn't stay for the long term. So, I've encountered my own share of people who have the long-term memory I wish I had. Hmmm... I guess we are all in a way just a continuum of wannabes! :D

Zappers,


Searcher
*************
I like your kind of Christianity. You don’t seem to have this ‘ I’m a Christian and know it all’ approach to dealing with people. Your form of Christianity is what my idea of what the Gospels were all about. I’m still on a stand off as to the Bible being the true and final word on the subject of God, but I have no problem with your approach and was moved by something you posted about what was in the Gospels. Sorry I don’t have time to go back and find it now, but I was moved by it.

Thank you for the sweet compliment, but I have to set the record straight here - although I do often quote the bible on this board, I am not a Christian at all. I apologize if I misrepresented myself in any way - that certainly wasn't my intention. I do know what you mean, though - I don't mind Christians who don't act obnoxious about their religion. I seldom witness what I consider "true Christianity", but there is a certain "something" about those who are "true Christians". The few I know who do fall into that category (at least in my book) are truly sweet people, with a kind of inner glow that warms the souls of those who meet them. As I said, it's a rare and lovely thing to behold.

Don't worry about your "learning disability", Zappers - you seem to do just fine! I have a reading disability myself (I read at about the speed of your average 3rd grader :( ), and it can be very frustrating when there are so many things I want to read and so little time to do it! As for that memory thing, I had a great one up until about 10 or 12 years ago (at least I think I did - I can't really remember, now! :) ) It used to be that I never had to write down a phone number - I could call it up at will. Now I have to practically write down my own phone number if I hope to remember it! The older I get, the worse my memory becomes, too. At one point, I was so concerned about my memory loss that I went to the doctor and they did an MRI and an EEG. Of course, they didn't find a thing! ;)

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Here's a little question, I think I already know how most of you will answer...

What defines being a homosexual?

Is it a single homosexual experience?

Is it a certain number of homosexual experiences?

Is it if you consider yourself homosexual, you are?

If you constantly wish and fantasize about homosexual sex, but stay celibate, are you a homosexual?

What about if you're married heterosexually but feel strongly you're homosexual, but don't do anything about it?

Or should we just forget all the damn labels, and just let people be people? I wish we could, but frankly, I don't think we will ever manage to accomplish that.

Curious to see what you all think. :)

MoonCat,

Personally, I think that those are some of the most rational and honest questions that I've seen asked here. Thanks, I needed that. Honestly, it is obvious that many people on this board are in denial in a big way. And also, I think that some of that is certainly attributable to lack of "experience", whether it be physical or mental. And ultimately, I think that is a GOOD thing. The reason I say that is that I really think that a lot of the baggage that people hang on sex is destructive to us all in a big way. Ultimately, if sex is going to be pure in intent, then it all has to start in your mind. I don't know though, reality and the view out my window, and history, and just simply what I know about myself says to me that it's NOT normal to have a purity of intent or thought regarding sex for humans in general. And I happen to also KNOW from experience, and so does everyone else, that the purer the intent, the love, the emotion, the better the sex right? So we're right back at the ideal. Yes Boris, "utopian sex". What is it? Well I can tell you this, it is NOT the afore mentioned wise-crack about a massive orgy. You're right, I do say some things for shock value. But I DON'T LIE. It's sex within the full scope of truth of what sex is SUPPOSED to mean and be and ALL THE GIVEN consequences of it, whether that be physical, emotional, or a child. So when I think of what some have referred to, and I have referred to as sexual deviancy, I happen to think that all sex in one way or another is usually "deviant" in some way. It's not pure. We're not pure. We can try real hard. That, I think, regarding everything in life, is the very meaning of life. And I honestly believe that the harder we try, if we are trying for the right reasons, we will ultimately benefit from it, even if at weak moments, tempting moments...the taste of sin is sweet is it not?...an easy way "out" is looking daaaaaaaamn good. Do you people hear me? Can I get an amen on that one? Maybe it's because I seem to have the libido of an eighteen year old boy. And maybe that even has something to do with the way other's see me, and hence the way I've had a tendency to see myself. Maybe it's what I've allowed myself to be exposed to in my mind or in my life. But it seems to me that a persons perceptions regarding sex, that is what it REALLY means to them when it all comes down to it, is more than anything, what defines their actual sexuality.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 09, 2000).]

Searcher,
thought you might be interested to know that there are drugs available now for memory loss.
In Cyprus there are two brands available over the counter, one is called...er Memor'X'
that's right and the other one (which aids blood circulation in the brain and is probably more suited to you) is called mmm,
Memor'E'.
My wife's been taking Memor E for about two weeks now but she still can't remember how often I want sex! :D

... http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

Tab,

That was extremely funny. LMAO!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

I am in agreement with Lori, Tab. ROFLMAO!!

Flash! WHAT??? You AGREE with me about something??????????? No, it can't be true!!!**in total shock***faint* :D

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

There is always a smartass in every crowd, or umm forum... ;)

Mooncat, Lori, et.al.:

There's been too much discussion here equating sexual behavior to sexuality. I don't agree with that perspective. It reminds me of the Behaviorist (also called Skinnerian, for a noted proponent B.F.Skinner) approach to cognition -- but since most of you wouldn't know what that is, let me give you a lowdown.

Classical Behaviorists basically claimed that cognition can only be defined in terms of externally observable acts or effects. Therefore, I can only be defined as happy if I actually <u>look</u> happy. And, if I am grimacing and nursing my arm and moaning, then that must mean that I have a pain in my arm. This kind of an approach toward comprehending cognition purely in terms of externally measurable behavior (Behaviorism) used to be popular early-to-mid twentieth century. It defined behavior in terms of reflex arcs connecting a stimulus to a response (which can itself feed back as a stimulus). Neo-Behaviorists later added "hidden", or "internal" reflex arcs, not directly observable but nevertheless detectable by their modifying effects on observable behavior. The entire approach has since been discredited and disproven into smitherenes and oblivion.

One cannot approach the human cognitive machine as a mechanical "black box" full of gears and crankshafts, which does not possess an internal state and can only be defined or driven by sequences of external stimuli and responses. By now, it's been scientifically demonstrated, convincingly and comprehensively, that human cognition does indeed involve internal states, and internal states aplenty.

The reason I alluded to Behaviorism, is that many of you seem to equate sexual status or behavior to internal cognitive and emotional states of a person. You are in effect commiting the same fallacy that Behaviorists did.

When I talk of sexuality, I do not merely mean how a person behaves, or whom the person is married to, etc. What I mean, is how a person actually feels inside about sex as well as desirability, attractiveness, affinity toward, or complementarity to them of other people of different sexes. I believe that my concept of sexuality, as just described, is intrinsically quite a bit deeper than what seems to be Lori's operational definition. And, I think that my concept of sexuality is also more in touch with the latest psychological and cognitive thinking.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 09, 2000).]

Hi Mooncat,
I've put my answers underneath your questions within your quote.


Originally posted by MoonCat:
Here's a little question, I think I already know how most of you will answer...

What defines being a homosexual?

A: Having a great sense of style!
And also being attracted sexually, only to people of the same sex.

Is it a single homosexual experience?

A: No.

Is it a certain number of homosexual experiences?

A: It depends. I think it's feasible for people to experiment with homosexuality on a number of occassions, before deciding it's not for them really.

Is it if you consider yourself homosexual, you are?

A: If you have always been attracted to the same sex and never to the opposite. And if you have had homo sex and enjoy it and want only that and you actually consider yourself a homosexual, then you probably are.
(I can hear cynics sniggering as one shouts out loud in a London cockney accent, "Can't you tell, 'esa pooftah mate?")

If you constantly wish and fantasize about homosexual sex, but stay celibate, are you a homosexual?

A: Again, if it's to the total exclusion of the opposite sex and you absolutely consider yourself to be one, then you are probably a potential/probable homosexual.
I think, you have had to have consummated an idea or fantasy before you could be considered to have been a perpertrator of it.

What about if you're married heterosexually but feel strongly you're homosexual, but don't do anything about it?

A: Tough! for both partners, but probably more common than we realise.

Or should we just forget all the damn labels, and just let people be people? I wish we could, but frankly, I don't think we will ever manage to accomplish that.

You said it MC ! (can i call you Moonpussy, when I want to be playful?) ;)

Curious to see what you all think. :)

... http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif



------------------
"The crows are already stoned", he said.
With a look of dispassion on his sad face.

Boris,

By "internal", or what you propose to be the anti-behaviorism, do you mean genetic? Hormonal? I guess I'll assume that you are, but it seems that you are trying to discount the fact that for ALL people, it is definately, without a doubt, BOTH of those things. And to try to say that homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality, is a condition of the respective "mix" of those two things, with "true" homosexuality being a genetic influence that is soooooooo overwhelmingly strong or impermeable or magic or whatever that it TOTALLY overshadows the behavioral aspect of it, and vice-versa for "true" heterosexuals, is absolutely ridiculous. And I would also come to the most logical conclusion then, FROM WHAT I KNOW ABOUT PEOPLE FOR A FACT, that it's safe to say that the vast majority of us on this planet are bisexual according to your own labels. Why do I say that? Because it is OBVIOUS to me, and I'm talking OVERWHELMINGLY apparent, that we all fall somewhere along a vast spectrum of genetic AND behavioral influences, and it is simply impossible and arbitrary for people to chop everyone up into three distinct and very narrow categories. I do not logically believe that it is possible for a genetic trait to be so overwhelming as to entirely negate the possibility, given the most prone behavioral circumstance, to someone being able to have a completely fulfilling sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex. It's just total hogwash, I'm sorry. It's not logical at all. I mean come on, the genetic makeup that you are referring to here is the same genetic makeup that produced a particular gender in the first place, and not JUST a gender independent of anything else, but someone who is on a vast hormonal spectrum somewhere. And that same genetic makeup doesn't independently (like in a vacuum)produce a particular type of sexuality. Gender and sexuality are related!!!! The same genetic material and the same hormones that combine to produce a girl or a boy do not SPECIFICALLY produce a girl or boy who is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of having a perfectly satisfying sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex. It's absolute hooey. And do you know what the most important reason why is? I think that the most important side of any sexual relationship for anyone is the meaning that they assign to it. Like I said, intentions mean everything.

Another reason that I'm so strong in my perception of this is that I'm born again. Being born again in Christ has EVERYTHING to do with a HUGE DRAMATIC CHANGE in one's perceptions. The average person would be ABSOLUTELY AMAZED at the number of things that had just never occurred to them before. Believe me, I have had an absolute 180 degree change in a lot of my perceptions because of my relationship with Jesus. That's a fact. And it does change everything. Just as a minor insignificant example, it can change a person who was GENETICALLY predispositioned or "predeterminded" as you insist, to be a nymphomaniac that could potentially be consumed with sex not only for physical reasons but emotional ones as well, into a person who now sees sex for what it really is, and is able to appreciate it for once for what it truly is, in it's purest sense at least in my mind, and if I'm lucky and keep my intentions where they are supposed to be, in my reality.

And by the way, behavioralism sounds a hell of a lot like the same justification you always use to deny anything metaphysical in nature. :D

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 09, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 09, 2000).]

Lori,

No, you misunderstand. "Internal" does not mean genetic or hormonal. Sorry for not being clearer -- that's the price one pays for specializing in something. Eventually, you start speaking the jargon without realizing that what you say may not make any sense to the non-cognoscenti.

To get a grip on what it means to have an internal state, consider a computer. It has some external behaviors, such as outputting an image on the screen or sending signals through your internet connection. But, every single program that runs on your computer also has hidden, internal behavior which is not directly observable by the user (you.) Every single program has its own private piece of memory and data, its own files stored permanently on disk, as well as its hidden algorithms and dependencies on the system's properties (like the computer's system clock, for example), a lot of which is not meant to ever be viewable or accessible by "outsiders". So when information flows through such a mechanism as a program, there is a lot of internal "churning" that occurs without any necessarily visible effects.

When it comes to subjective experience, external states would denote your behavior, while internal states would refer to your subconscious processes and memory, as well as your feelings, thoughts, desires, moods, etc. which may not necessarily affect your outwardly behavior.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Woooooaaaaaahhhhh Nellie! Well then Boris, based on that, I would have to totally just have to say that is the lamest thing I've ever heard out of you???? I'm kinda dumbfounded myself cause you are sooooooo damn smart you just kill me! :) But honestly,


When it comes to subjective experience, external states would denote your behavior, while internal states would refer to your subconscious processes and memory, as well as your feelings, thoughts, desires, moods, etc. which may not necessarily affect your outwardly behavior.

Boris, all of these things, are totally subjective, just like you just pointed out? So is your arguement was that these, feelings, thoughts, desires, moods, etc are not subjective or that they are???? It's either one or the other, and I'm confused?

Ok wait, my brain's starting to work here, all of these internal traits are not only subjective but also not only determine, but are also determined by our perceptions! So, if I'm not totally off base here, I think that what you are trying to say is that someone may not be "able" to change said perceptions. Is that close? Hog-wash. Boris, that is only the very definition of a paradigm. One of these days Boris, maybe even you will know what I'm talking about when you get religion. :)

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,

Give me some credit. I may not be as smart as you assume, but I'm not that dumb either. If something I'm saying sounds really stupid, then that's probably not what I meant to say.

I was explaining the terminology. By "subjective experience", I implied your own personal experience as a human being. This means that from your own point of reference, your external behaviors would be what is considered "external", whereas that which you do not outwardly exhibit would be construed as "internal" -- including even things you yourself are not aware of. But "internal" can refer to different things -- dynamic processes that occur in time without lasting consequences to the computational structure, as well as permanent storage of information or modification of brain structures. These two internal types of consequences of information processing, combined together, form "internal state". In other words, from an experimenter's perspective, your spontaneous outwardly behavior cannot be accurately predicted without first possessing full knowledge of your internal state. Hopefully, by now the meaning of external vs. internal ought to start becoming clear.

Btw, as far as the rest of us are concerned, your outwardly behavior is not subjective -- since we can all independently observe your behavior and our descriptions will subsequently agree with each other. Thus, your external state is indeed objective, while your internal state is subjective -- at least it is when verbally described by you, because we as outsiders have no idea what your internal states really feel like to you in particular. However, as scientists we can measure your internal states with EEGs and MRIs and PETs and such -- and these measurements would again be objective. The difference will be that while we may determine your internal state attributes objectively, we will have no idea what that state "feels like" to you subjectively. But all this objective vs. subjective discussion is a digression anyway. We were originally concerned with external vs. internal states as applies in the Behaviorism analogy. The point is, that you cannot justifiably make conclusions about a person's internal, subjective, experiences based on what you objectively determine from external behavior. You cannot justifiably extrapolate your own subjective experiences to others either, because there are no assurances that other people feel about things or perceive things like you do.

Philosophically, this is called "the Other Minds problem." Classically, it goes something like this: how can you really know that any other humans possess an existence independent of your own? What if life is something like a dream, and everyone around you is merely a fictional character generated by your own mind? This question, while seemingly absurd, is actually quite deep. In fact, there is absolutely no way to find a resolution for the Other Minds problem. All we can do, is just plain ASSUME that other people possess their own minds. This assumption is also nontrivial, as demonstrated by studies of human development. In fact, children prior to a certain age (~4-5 years old, I believe) fail to demonstrate awareness of other minds. They are purely "egotistical" and tend to believe that other people know, feel and need exactly what the child knows, feels and needs, without the child needing to tell the others anything. Thus, you get behaviors such as "hiding" by covering one's eyes in a belief that with such an arrangement, the other people wouldn't see anything either. Then, as children mature, they begin to gradually understand that other people possess an experience independent of their own. (Incidentally, such behavior in humans suggests that other animals are incapable of construing Other Minds -- since the smartest other animal we know, the adult chimpanzee, is approximately equivalent in intelligence to a 3-4 year old toddler (minus the verbal abilities and plus better motor coordination and more world knowledge).)

So what this particular discussion ultimately boils down to, is this. (1) You tend to assume, in a Behaviorist-like manner, that any individual's total cognitive state can be characterized through their external states alone. (2) Only hidden in that assumption, is the tacit requirement to know your own internal states as well, so that you can extrapolate them to others. However, the first assumption, taken alone, is demonstrably fallacious. And combined with the second it forms a methodology that is, at the very least, bad: in essense, you cannot claim to know what other people feel or think, because you have no assurances that they indeed function in the same way that you do. In fact, you know for sure that other people don't function like you do. Some people like math, and some don't. Some people are high priests, and others are serial murderers. Some people are nerds, and others are bimbos. These are all external characteristics, but they must be reflecting internal differences. In fact, other people's subjective experiences may be nothing at all like your own. Therefore, you have no justification in trying to impose your private intuitions about personal issues upon others. In fact, many of your personal intuitions are simply incompatible with those of other people, because other people are built differently -- in a similar way that software compiled to run on different computer architectures will be incompatible if you try to swap it between those architectures.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 09, 2000).]

Originally posted by Boris:
-- since the smartest other animal we know, the adult chimpanzee, is approximately equivalent in intelligence to a 3-4 year old toddler (minus the verbal abilities and plus better motor coordination and more world knowledge) .)



I don't read many on the World Affairs forum, Boris! :D

... http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif



------------------
"The crows are already stoned", he said.
With a look of dispassion on his sad face.

MoonCat--

* "Or should we just forget all the damn labels, and just let people be people? I wish we could, but frankly, I don't think we will ever manage to accomplish that."

Umm ... amen ... thank you ... I agree wholeheartedly ... you've hit the nail on the head ... (okay, now I'm risking a string of really bad sayings for this, so I'll stop.) :D

But I think that's exactly the issue at hand.

However, the other questions you asked deserve some consideration. So, for my part:

* "What defines being a homosexual?" In the most real aspect, I would assert that only the homosexual can define their own self as homosexual; it stems from the compulsion or desire to find pleasure in acts typically regarded as sexual with one's own. I would also assert that the compulsions or desires must be a recurring thing ... to act upon them means nothing, else there's thousands of young virgins who are lying when they say they are heterosexual.

* "Is it a single homosexual experience?" Please consider part of the speculations above; I do feel that there is a difference between being homosexual and having a homosexual encounter.

* "Is it if you consider yourself homosexual, you are?" I think that's largely part of it. Perhaps it is all that is needed; else there's thosuands of young I-think-I'm-gay virgins who are lying when they say so.

* "If you constantly wish and fantasize about homosexual sex, but stay celibate, are you a homosexual?" There's something there if one stays celibate. There are other considerations if one is heterosexually active, say, a closet-gay who is married. But largely, it comes down to the prior assertion that one needs not actualize emotion or realize fantasy in order to "be" homosexual.

* "What about if you're married heterosexually but feel strongly you're homosexual, but don't do anything about it?" In that case, I feel the individual is lying to their own self, though I would discount at least in part the moral considerations of perpetuating that lie to other people. One is what one is ... the greater implications being those surrounding the marital relationship itself. But as to defining one's homosexuality, in this case I would look to why nothing is done about it. On one hand, it could be simple fear amid the perception of an anti-gay society; to the other, it could be that one isn't necessarily homosexual, but is entertaining those fantasies because the sexual reality of the marriage is so poor. In the case of the latter, extrication from the marriage will not resolve the question, merely allow the possibility of resolution. But one would probably want to figure why the alternate fantasies were specifically homosexual.

However, I would assert that none of the observations I've made above amount to anything in practice. This because, as you have so wonderfully wondered, the labels simply need to go. The only time it should matter what gender you screw should be in a pick-up introduction: "Pardon me, but I couldn't help noticing that your appearance is quite striking and appealing; your impressions of me as a person aside, am I the wrong gender to be hitting on you?"

As to labels, I would like to make a general political statement:

* Is The Color Purple a good book because: A) Alice Walker is black and she can write; B) she's a woman and can write; C) she's a black woman who can write; or D) she's can write well.

* Is Oscar Wilde taught as a good writer because he was good, or because he was gay?

* Is C.S. Lewis a good writer because he was Christian? Or because he could express himself better than his contemporaries?

I would assert the same for people in general. If anyone is a positive force in the world, then labels don't matter. If anyone is a negative force in the world, then labels don't matter. But if someone is worried about labels, what kind of force are they contributing to the scheme? Labels are designed to distinguish, to separate. Why, then, separate people according to labels?

But that's just my soapbox and aimed nowhere in particular.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

:D Hey, good stuff, everyone!

My personal take is pretty much that the labels are going to be inaccurate, no matter what. I am saying this badly, I mean; as soon as you apply a label to someone, you are simplifying that person, and therefore it cannot be correct. Is that any better?? LOL.

I have always been a little uncomfortable with all of these labels:

homosexual
heterosexual
bisexual
transsexual
transvestite

I think people have a need to catagorize others, some kind of built-in mechanism we use to try to understand those around us. So you meet someone, and you try to squeeze them into these catagories you have in your head.

I have listed 5 examples above - five catagories of sexuality that I can easily discern from eachother. But does everyone I meet fit into one of those catagories? Of course not! So by shoving each person I meet into one of those catagories, what am I accomplishing? Well, I'm making some assumptions that might or might not be true. I might have expectations that are unfounded. (Like if I cram Bob into the homosexual catagory. Most homosexuals I know are artists, so I make the assumption that Bob probably is an artist. Turns out, Bob can't even hold a pencil straight.)

That example is a pretty harmless one, but you see my point. Labeling people is a slippery thing to do, it can cause a lot of problems. But yet I believe we ALL do it, to some degree or another. Perhaps the best we can all do is to be aware of the fact that we ARE labeling people, and try to make sure the labels are on post-it notes, and can be taken off and re-arranged easily. :)

So I guess my question was a bit of a trick question. :) But it generated a lot of good thought!

Boris~

I totally understand what you're saying about internal vs. external. Like your example with the guy moaning and groaning and holding his arm. Mabye he's not hurt, maybe he's just a big faker trying to get attention - you can't really tell just by looking at him.

I am reminded of my dog - he tore a dew claw off a month or two ago. He limped on the wrong foot for 2 days after he got out of the vet - holding up the uninjured foot and hopping around on the one with the stitches. This animal was just trying to get attention, there was not any real pain there or he wouldn't have been able to hop on the hurt foot. What a typical male! (I'm just kidding!!) :)

Well Flash,

I read over some of the scriptures that you wanted me too, and I think that whoever wrote that little piece was just really, really stretching things. I've got to give them an A for effort here, but I think that they are trying desparately to find confirmation of something that they are never going to find. I just don't quite know what else to say here besides for crying out loud, can't we EVER just use some common sense??????? See, that is exactly where people get into trouble with the Bible. When you are specifically reading the Bible to TRY to prove something that you ALREADY believe, I think that it's safe to say that you can pick and choose many verses to "serve your purpose". I do think that the verses mentioned do pertain to sexuality, marriage, and "natural" or inherent intent. I also think THAT IF FOR ONCE PLEASE GOD YOU WOULD USE SOME COMMON SENSE WHEN LOOKING AT OURSELVES AND THIS WORLD, you would see that what I just read, that was supposed to somehow change my perception, just reinforced it. There IS a natural inherent ideal intention regarding everything that God has given us. Now use your noodle, and figure out what that is.....

Also, I wanted to note that your comment about me jonesin' for a man because I want to have a baby is just as ludicrous as the comment that 666 made regarding me wanting to kill children. You know that I have a low stupidity tolerance, so ????? I want to have sex cause I'm horny, dummy. Isn't that common sense-ish when you really think about it??????

Listen, you guys just really really want me to be a lunatic, so you twist what I say. I guess I can't assume anything when I write, so here goes again...

When it comes to sex, this is the way I see it...
God gave us the hormones and the organs to have sex, and it feels good for a reason. Because He wanted it too. THAT is WHY people have sex, including me. Duh. When I say that sex is about babies, I don't mean it's ONLY about that, but that is a big part of it's intent. I also believe that God shows us what His intentions are through His Word and His spiritual laws. For everything that is given us, there is an ideal God-given intention for which it is to be used. Sex, obviously produces children. Is it supposed to? Of course it is. I also think that another divine intention is regarding the intimacy that is intended, and the benefit being a healthy emotional state. There are rules to be met, to ensure that these intentions are not ignored, or side-stepped, or basically that we don't internalize them for our own selfish needs, but always promote God's will. Rule - monogamy and marriage. Why? Cause it's good for the natural consequence of the relationship, which is children. From an emotional standpoint, we all know that the sex is better with someone we love and trust. A marriage is SUPPOSED to be the most loving and trusting bond ever created. After all, it's supposed to be for life right? Keep the ideal in mind Flash that I'm always talking about. And don't take one little sliver of it, and try to put in it a vacuum, because everything is interdependent. Men and women NEED each other. They NEED the relationship THE WAY THAT GOD INTENDED THE RELATIONSHIP TO BE. It's good for us, it's good for the children, it's good for the universe. Please, please, please just use some common sense.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

That is simply your opinion, Lori. You have no FACT to it whatsoever...talk about wanting to read something into scriptures :rolleyes:
Further, I did not imply you wanted to have sex with a man because you wanted a baby!! I KNOW better than that. What I was talking about is how you were saying it was all suppose to be "right" in God's eyes blah blah blah...then you turn around and say you want to have sex with a guy so bad right now...I KNEW well what you meant by that..but, here you are putting down homosexuality because it's such a sin ..and in the same breath honk your horn about how bad you wanted sex right now..and that you'd give just about anything..
I am done debating this subject with you. I am going to leave it at this... you have a right to be who you want to be...AND SO DO I!! I haven't tried to change you...don't try to change me. If you can do that..then that would be great!

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited February 10, 2000).]

Well how about this...I'm horny as hell, would love to have sex, but in fact if the intent and circumstance are NOT right in the eyes of my Lord, then I will CHOOSE to abstain. You're reverting back to the "Christians are aliens" arguement, in assuming that just because someone isn't doinking, that they must just be weird, and they just don't want to doink. That's absurd. Everyone wants to doink. :) But there are rules. If I doinked everyone that I wanted to doink, I just wouldn't get much else done...I'd have to quit my job....I'd lose a bunch of weight....my animals would starve too...and I sure as hell wouldn't have time to talk to you. :)

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,
if you were a kangaroo, you'd be going doink, doink, doink!
But as I know that you cannot be a kangaroo, I suspect that what you meant to say was, bonk, bonk, bonk!
... http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

Bonk? I think it's more of a doink. Oh no, not another thing to debate!!!!! ROFLMAO!

Oh, and I almost forgot the lesbians...is it slurp?


------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 10, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 10, 2000).]

Lori,


Also, I wanted to note that your comment about me jonesin' for a man because I want to have a baby is just as ludicrous as the comment that 666 made regarding me wanting to kill children.

You know I all most don't know what to say. First you twisted my post so badly it wasn't funny. You see only what you want to see! Go back and reread my post in that topic and you might finaly understand that I was pointing out that through your own words you were condoning this act that the bible says God commited, but that will only happen when you taken your blinders off!!

If you have a problem with me or what I posted address me not other people. We are not in the third grade any more. At any time you chose you can click on the "mail" icon above any of my post to email me.

------------------
All I know is what I understand. All I understand is what I know. :)

666,

I was just trying to make a point homey. It's the same point that Boris made to me. If you are thinking that something I say is THAT ludicrous, then you are probably misunderstanding. That's the way I felt when I read that post of yours, and that's the way I feel about 90% of the time out here. Flash does that to me all the time. I was simply trying to point out the obvious. I'm sorry ok, I didn't bring it up again to sling it in your face, I was only trying to make a point. I'm not mad at you or anything about it, ok??? *smooch*

Tony,

You're right. He is sensitive. That's a good thing for a guy. :)

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Tab', Lori~

Isn't it "boink, boink, boink"?

LOL :)

Oh boink! You're right MC, I think it is!!!! LOL!

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori, MC,
look gals, in England it's definetly, 'bonk', 'bonking', 'bonked'. They have car bumper (fender) stickers that say, 'honk if you bonk'.
You will find that The British will never doink or boink unless they've been to Brooklyn NY.
Lesbians? :P :P :P :D

... http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

------------------
"The crows are already stoned", he said.
With a look of dispassion on his sad face.

Okay, Tab', we'll let you slide. The English always say things wrong anyway. (I'm KIDDING!) :p

Lori,



I'm horny as hell, would love to have sex, but in fact if the intent and circumstance are NOT right in the eyes of my Lord, then I will CHOOSE to abstain.


Do you use contraceptives during your regular sex? I bet you do! But if you do, then you are violating the original "intent and circumstances", as claimed in your religion. How is your sex, then, any more "right" than homosexual sex? (Neither type can possibly produce a baby!)

Additionally, it is one thing to "CHOOSE" to abstain, or <u>perform</u> some other act. It's an altogether different thing when it comes to personality. You can't "CHOOSE" who you are, even though you can choose what you do. Big difference there. BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Sorry Boris,

Wrong answer. I don't believe in birth control. I think that the entire idea is hideous, disrespectful to God, and based upon greed, lust, and general self-interest. And no, I'm not on the pill. If my husband and I have sex, and he chooses not to want to get me preggers, then he has to choose to wear a condom, or choose to pull out. That is his decision. All I know is that whenever he wants it, it's my job to give it. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Also, are you still trying to tell me that someone can't change their perceptions????? Give it a rest already would ya? I'm getting bored. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,

Well, I must say you surprised me. So you don't use contraceptives. You also hate your husband, and are considering divorce (am I right?) But you still want to risk having a baby -- at this point in your life??? How irresponsible is that?!

You think the idea of contraception is silly??!!! If you want to discuss that, start a new thread please, you're gonna need it!

And yes, I'm still trying to show you that personalities can't be changed at will. NOTE: "personality" is quite different from "perceptions". Boring or not, it's the truth -- no matter how strongly you are bent on denying it.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 11, 2000).]

Lori,

I just read over my last post and yours, and realized I want to say a little more...



I don't believe in birth control. I think that the entire idea is hideous, disrespectful to God, and based upon greed, lust, and general self-interest. And no, I'm not on the pill. If my husband and I have sex, and he chooses not to want to get me preggers, then he has to choose to wear a condom, or choose to pull out. That is his decision.


Wait a minute! If your husband chooses to use contraception while having sex with <u>you</u>, then it's OK?! If you think the whole idea is "hideous", then how come you are willing to submissively participate in it? Isn't this complicity through a failure to intervene?

How come pregnancy is a decision of your husband, and not you? You mean to tell me that you have no choice in the matter, and don't even want to have a choice in the first place?!



All I know is that whenever he wants it, it's my job to give it.


This is what you think is the will of your Lord?! Submission to your husband? Anything he wants, it's your job to give it??!! I can't believe what I'm reading here!

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

I don't hate my husband and I don't want a divorce, so whether you think it's "smart" or not isn't really relevant to me. The fact is that we're married, now whether we should have gotten married to begin with may be a point of contention, but it shouldn't be impossible to work out at any rate. And if I'm going to get married, and I'm going to lay down with that guy, then I don't care if it's CONVENIENT FOR ME OR NOT (which apparently you use the terms convenient and smart interchangably), I will expect that if I get pregnant with a child that I will embrace that result whole-heartedly whether he does or not. Everyone has their own life to live, and I'm going to be the ONLY person lying on MY death-bed, so convenience and self-interest, whether it be my own or anyone else's, isn't relevant to me anymore.

And for Pete's sake Boris, someone can change their personality at will. All it takes is a little honesty, a little open-mindedness, some confidence, and loving support. If what you said is true then behavior modification and salvation would never work. I know that you're not used to hearing this, but YOU'RE WRONG.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,

Sorry... It almost sounds like you are using the Bible to avoid making certain decisions and to avoid taking responsibility for some of your own actions in your marriage.

For example, if you truly believe that you should submit to everything that your husband "wants," that he is the one who is responsible for making all the decisions, then why don't you give him the money which he desires. If he desires to sit home and do nothing while you work and pay the bills, why not do as he desires?

On the other hand, if you will not do everything he desires because you know that some things are wrong, and if some things he wants directly conflict with your beliefs then, if your husband says that he wants a divorce (which goes against God's teachings), and you are against it due to your beliefs, then let him be the one to file and when you go to any hearing, state your opposition based on your religious beliefs. Please do not use the Bible to justify submitting divorce papers because that is what your husband says he wants.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited February 11, 2000).]

TS,

What you say is true but to a point. My husband may CHOOSE to ask me for all of my money to waste on whatever. I am not his slave, I am his wife. I am in no way shape or form saying that I will choose to divorce him over ANYTHING except adultery, because it says that's it in the Bible. BUT, I do not have to subject myself to abuse. Ms. Christian, do you think that God wants us to be abused by our husbands????? Submission does not mean stupidity either. I asked my husband to stay with his parents because he was making my life an absolute living hell and I COULD NOT POSSIBLY keep up with his spending habits. REMEMBER ESAU??? AND if my husband STATES that he has DECIDED of his own volition to end our marriage, then whether or not I pay for the stupid thing is irrelevant. If he decided he didn't want to, then it wouldn't ever happen. I'm also not real impressed with the tone in you and Boris' last messages. I think that you're just pissed off cause I've made a point that you're not willing to face up to. But hey, that's just my opinion right?

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

Lori,

You are right. It is your opinion based on a misperception.

Do I think that natural homosexuality is a deviant behavior? Absolutely not. I think that sexuality exists apart from sexual behavior (the act) and that homosexuality is just one form of natural human sexuality. I think I made that very clear previously.

The tone of my last post was intended to be thought provoking and, if it was the case that you were using God's teachings to suit specific circumstances and not others, one of caution. It followed a subsequent post of yours and was in no way indicative of retalitation. Believe me, I am not wired that way.

What I was simply trying to get you to think about was, how and when do you apply God's teachings? Always? Almost always? Sometimes? Rarely? Never?

Do I think you should submit yourself to abuse? Absolutely not. You must love others as you love "yourself." Allowing yourself to be subject to abuse is not indicative of "love" of oneself.

Do I think that you should submit yourself completely, in all things, to your husband? Absolutely not. In marriage, two become one, not just sexually, but in all matters. Both husband and wife have moral responsibilities and obligations to each other and to the marriage.

Do I think you should file for divorce because that is what your husband says he wants when you know it goes against God's law concerning marriage? Absolutely not. I'm not quite sure about the marriage vows that you and your husband might have taken, however, they usually include: "for better or worse" and "for richer or poorer" and "in sickness and in health"...

Among other things, it seems that you are in a "worse" period of your marriage with your husband, it seems that he is "poorer" in many respects and it also seems that he is "sick" in a way... an extremely trying situation for you to say the least, and only you can decide what to do.

Believe me Lori, I am not judging you or mad at you and I have no negative intent in my heart. I am simply suggesting that you consider the entirety of your situation.

If you do decide to go along with the divorce, please remember that you will have to take responsibility for your own actions - whether you call it your husband's decision "alone" or not.

Lori,



I will expect that if I get pregnant with a child that I will embrace that result whole-heartedly whether he does or not. Everyone has their own life to live, and I'm going to be the ONLY person lying on MY death-bed, so convenience and self-interest, whether it be my own or anyone else's, isn't relevant to me anymore.


Are you so sure that all those things aren't relevant? What about the convenience and self-interest of any child you might potentially have? If you aren't in a good family situation right now, how can you possibly justify even risking getting pregnant?



And for Pete's sake Boris, someone can change their personality at will. All it takes is a little honesty, a little open-mindedness, some confidence, and loving support. If what you said is true then behavior modification and salvation would never work.


:D LMAO :D :D
:confused: :rolleyes:

When did "behavior modification and salvation" ever work, pray tell? Are they working so well that U.S. has one of the highest prison populations in the world? Did they work so well that Communism took over the world?

One can change opinions at will. One can try and change attitudes. One can choose what behaviors to engage in. But one CANNOT change their own personality! For Pete's sake, Lori, and for Jesus' too.

You've been "labeled" as bisexual, not because you express certain views -- but because you claim that either sex is equally attractive to you. You ideology, choices, etc. DON'T MATTER to your sexual orientation. You can't "choose" NOT to be attracted to beautiful women, although you can choose not to get into romantic relationships with them. Similarly, homosexuals cant "choose" to be romantically interested in the opposite sex. And I know of heterosexuals (friends) who, although willing to admit that certain men are attractive to them, consider same-sex intercourse revolting and disgusting. Revolting, Lori. That's not a choice. Finding boiled broccoli to be revolting is not a choice either.

As for pregnancy control -- I don't believe it was God's intent that Earth suffer from overpopulation. Though hell, I don't even believe in God in the first place... :p

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Lori,

Opppsss! :o A bit of embarrassment on my part! on to other things...


What you say is true but to a point. My husband may CHOOSE to ask me for all of my money to waste on whatever. I am not his slave, I am his wife. I am in no way shape or form saying that I will choose to divorce him over ANYTHING except adultery, because it says that's it in the Bible. BUT, I do not have to subject myself to abuse. Ms. Christian, do you think that God wants us to be abused by our husbands????? Submission does not mean stupidity either. I asked my husband to stay with his parents because he was making my life an absolute living hell and I COULD NOT POSSIBLY keep up with his spending habits. REMEMBER ESAU??? AND if my husband STATES that he has DECIDED of his own volition to end our marriage, then whether or not I pay for the stupid thing is irrelevant. If he decided he didn't want to, then it wouldn't ever happen. I'm also not real impressed with the tone in you and Boris' last messages. I think that you're just pissed off cause I've made a point that you're not willing to face up to. But hey, that's just my opinion right?

Are you forgeting that you have the right to not have to live like this. DO you realy understand the full implications involved with remaing in a relation ship with some one like this? It's called an
enabler. I am verry familar with this sort of thing, my father was a terminal alcoholic (refused to stop drinking untill he was dead). By staying with someone like this who refuses to change the habbit you only help them continue. Through various means that you may not even be aware of. The spouse of an alcoholic / drug abuser needs as much help as the alcoholic / drug abuser. I have put a couple of links below to a few sites about this. I wish only the best for you!
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/gjl37/index.shtml The center for recoverery http://www.oceansofenergy.com/crank.htm A personal story of an addiction to crank http://www.pta.org/commonsense/ Common senes rasing drug and alcohole free children
It will be a difficult job if you chose to have child with this man. http://www.davidthomson.com/ and here is a link to a good book about addiction, A fellow ship of man and women by David Thomson

I know that you said he uses pot, but even that can cause major problems. One the bigget misconceptions is that pot is not addictive. Well first there are 2 type of addiction. Physical dependence and the one pot is most known for, Psychological dependence. Secound a child of an alcoholic has a fity percent chance of carring the gene to predispose him /her to addiction to alchole. Of those who do there is apoximatly fifty percent of them who are predisposed to addiction to pot. Pot is so similar to alcohole, it is both a sitmulant and a depressant, that it easy for an alcholic of child of an alcoholic to become addicted to pot. Once again I wish only the best for you and any future children you may have!


------------------
All I know is what I understand. All I understand is what I know. :)

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited February 11, 2000).]

666--

In some ways, pot wrote the book on psychological dependence. Psychological dependence, as a difficulty of marijuana use, only came about after the following anti-drug arguments had failed:

* Reputation--only loose women use marijuana; apparently, using pot gets a woman raped, and it's her own damn fault.

* Race--much like the "Planned Parenthood" eugenics letters, a letter went to the President explaining that marijuana prohibition could significantly reduce the crime problem among racial minorities; the logic here was that they would all be in jail.

* Health--a 1972 report by the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics demonstrated, at the least, that there was no evidence of marijuana being a carcinogen.

* Crime--the last 28 years have demonstrated that the crimes the War Against Drugs hopes to eliminate would largely not exist were certain drugs decriminalized.

In the early 1980's, while schools (in my area, at least) were botching the Drug War as badly as possible, people feared the addictive cocaine. I remember learning about addictive substances like cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. Were caffeine or nicotine addictive? The answer then was "Yes, but in a different way." And then in 1993 I saw the '72 report, and the only pot-addiction literature I've seen since originates within anti-drug campaigns.

(This does go somewhere. And all of that to support the following....)

It seems to me that psychological dependency on marijuana is symptomatic. We might counsel a user against his/her dependency, but as it is a symptom, the conflicts that motivate drug use/dependency still remain. I'm usually a little sarcastic about it in the following sense: "Great, now he's depressed, pissed off, and sober." And that combination is just as bad as depressed and stoned.

I would assert that the child of an alcoholic parent becoming psychologically dependent on marijuana is less genetic than it is acquired behavior. I would further assert that attempting to treat marijuana dependency before treating the underlying family problem will result in a null sum, at best; they might not be smoking pot, but the symptoms of the greater problem will manifest themselves differently.

Otherwise, I must apologize for butting in here. I'm aware that the bulk of the post I'm responding toward actually focuses elsewhere. But the Drug War, if we must have it at all, calls upon me to speak out whenever I see what I consider those misconceptions.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

OT:

Tiassa,

as far as marijuana goes, I'd vote to not only legalize it but create incentive programs for growing and industrially implementing hemp. What better way to save the forests, replace cotton, reduce crimes, etc, etc?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris--

It may not be fair to say, "What better way?" After all, we can't know what better way until we can see the sum of hemp legalization.

Of course, that seems to be the whole issue. If memory serves me correctly, the same group of people who try to keep medical and industrial hemp research illegal are the same ones who say legalization is a bad idea because there's not enough research.

But I'm just whining.

What better way, indeed ... I'm all behind you there.

As a side note, in 1992, in Oregon, a marijuana legalization bill failed because several out-of-state, anti-drug groups outfunded the measure's supporters. Those anti-drug groups consisted of the usual DARE lunatics, PDFA, and then an assembly of funds from cotton, paper/lumber, pharmaceutical, and fuel companies. (Less than coincidentally, we had a triple-trailer measure on the ballot, to outlaw Kenworths with three trailers; the biggest spenders by far in that campaign were from Burlington-Northern and one other railroad company--they, of course, supported the banning of three-trailer rigs.)

Okay, I'm babbling. Thanx, gotta go. I'll try not to spin this topic any farther from its origin, I promise.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

Tiassa, Boris,
do we decriminalise or legalise?
Do we only do this for marijuana, or do we include other currently illegal drugs? if so, which ones do we keep banned?
How desirable would it be to give everyone legal access to marijuana, let's say.
How might it affect a society's productivity,
or propensity for accidents?

This is actually a huge subject, I'm wondering whether we should start a new thread for it!
... http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif



------------------
"The crows are already stoned", he said.
With a look of dispassion on his sad face.