Lori, 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
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! 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? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ 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?????? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You've got people practically begging you... Do I get some too? I respect and admire you. Even though we see some things differently. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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, 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. 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, 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 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.
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???? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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" ?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Lori, what exactly do you think lesbian means? I'm just curious. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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 Searcher NEVER said anything about wanting to have sex with this woman, nor did she imply it in any way 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [This message has been edited by Flash (edited February 06, 2000).]
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: And...
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
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. 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>" 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? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!): "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." 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. 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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: 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! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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?) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "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).]
