Homosexuality

[billydkid]

As with everything else I know you all have been waiting with bated breath for my take on the subject. My feeling is this - the reason there is so much hysteria over homosexuality is we still harbor (here in the US) a huge amount of Victorian hysteria over sexuality itself. I realize I am not actually letting any cats out of the bag with this tremendous insight, but it seems to me the thrust of the agenda of those people concerned about homosexual rights should be more geared toward fostering the acceptance of sexuality as natural and good. It is true media and advertising is filled sexual titilation of one sort or another, but I think that sort of thing is a symptom of our repression. We love sex, but hate ourselves for loving it. We claim to believe sex is a normal part of life, but squirm and squeal when it rears it's ugly head.

Look at the way any sex crime is widely considered far more horrendous than a crime of mere violence. Look at the way that we never really set sex criminals free even after they have served their sentences, but mere murderers - well, they've done their time. I am not defending either and do not take issue with treating sex criminals harshly. I just think we should treat "mere" murderers just as harshly. I am just saying that sex has achieved a status in our country that it does not deserve. Not that it is not very, very significant to our lives, but it is not some uniquely powerful and dangerous thing such that it should be the obsession that it is - in either an approving way or a disapproving way.

When I was a teen, for example, any girl who was not a virgin was considered a whore. Any girl who got pregnant in school was immediately removed and generally left the community. It was considered that she had as good as ruined her life. Talk about over reaction. And the reason for it was not that a new but unplanned for life was going to enter the world. The reason for the hysterical reaction was because it was proof positive that the girl had actually "done it". Friggin ridiculous. And these girls lives were, in fact, largely ruined, because the expectation of everyone involved was that they would and should be. Nobody even remotely considered the notion that maybe bringing a new life into the world might be a source of joy and something to celebrate.

I have gotten off tract a little, but the basic idea is this: We don't need to worry about homosexuality being accepted per se', what we need to worry about is that sexuality itself be demystified and genuinely accepted as a wonderful part of the human experience.

 

[TragicMonkey]

My theory is that some people are so vocal against homosexuality because they hate to think of all they've missed out on should they be proven wrong about it.

 

[andyandy]

When I was a teen, for example, any girl who was not a virgin was considered a whore. Any girl who got pregnant in school was immediately removed and generally left the community. It was considered that she had as good as ruined her life. Talk about over reaction. And the reason for it was not that a new but unplanned for life was going to enter the world. The reason for the hysterical reaction was because it was proof positive that the girl had actually "done it". Friggin ridiculous.

any Christian country is going to have some pretty messed up concepts of women and sex - indeed the ideal biblical portrayal of womanhood is someone at once both a virgin and a mother....talk about unobtainable goals*.....

[*turkey basters aside.....]

 

[Darth Rotor]

I realize I am not actually letting any cats out of the bag with this tremendous insight, but it seems to me the thrust of the agenda of those people concerned about homosexual rights should be more geared toward fostering the acceptance of sexuality as natural and good.

Aye, this has been the line taken with a rather vocal group since the sexual revolution started. Without this PoV, Dr Ruth never makes her millions.

It is true media and advertising is filled sexual titilation of one sort or another, but I think that sort of thing is a symptom of our repression. We love sex, but hate ourselves for loving it. We claim to believe sex is a normal part of life, but squirm and squeal when it rears it's ugly head.

Who is this "we," paleface? How is sex "ugly?"

Look at the way any sex crime is widely considered far more horrendous than a crime of mere violence. Look at the way that we never really set sex criminals free even after they have served their sentences, but mere murderers - well, they've done their time.

That is a mess, isn't it? We had a discussion about sentencing for possessing kiddie porn, and it seems armed robbers and those who do assult and mayhem get lighter sentencing. It's a weird feature of our justice system, to be sure.

I am not defending either and do not take issue with treating sex criminals harshly. I just think we should treat "mere" murderers just as harshly.

I am just saying that sex has achieved a status in our country that it does not deserve.

What decade are you living in? Not everyone is hung up about sex.

Not that it is not very, very significant to our lives, but it is not some uniquely powerful and dangerous thing such that it should be the obsession that it is - in either an approving way or a disapproving way.

No argument there.

When I was a teen, for example, any girl who was not a virgin was considered a whore.

By whom? That isn't how it was when I was in high school. Some girls did it, some did it with their boyfriends, and some did it with damned near anyone. That latter group did tend to get referred to as sluts.

Any girl who got pregnant in school was immediately removed and generally left the community.

Not any more. My daughter had three classmates who were pregnant, when she was in 8th grade. They came to school.

It was considered that she had as good as ruined her life. Talk about over reaction. And the reason for it was not that a new but unplanned for life was going to enter the world.

What decade are you living in?

The reason for the hysterical reaction was because it was proof positive that the girl had actually "done it". Friggin ridiculous.

And gotten caught on the probability of a sperm and an egg doing what they are designed to do.

And these girls lives were, in fact, largely ruined, because the expectation of everyone involved was that they would and should be. Nobody even remotely considered the notion that maybe bringing a new life into the world might be a source of joy and something to celebrate.

Your resort to Victorian trope is hardly supporting your post. To be sure, any young lady's life is massively changed if she has a baby before she is ready to, and particularly if the boyfriend, or whomever, disappears.

I have gotten off tract a little, but the basic idea is this: We don't need to worry about homosexuality being accepted per se', what we need to worry about is that sexuality itself be demystified and genuinely accepted as a wonderful part of the human experience.

It has been, to a great extent. What decade are you living in, I ask again? I lived through the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's and 1970's and can't match current habits and views with your assertion. I tend to agree with you that there is value in the demystification of sex. If that will tend, over time, to change the acceptance of homosexuals in society at large, is still an open question. Let's look at how the state of play is now. When I was 16, men declaring themselves openly homosexual were a rarity. Such is now commonplace, and fits far better into the social weave. Billy Crystal's character in the show "SOAP" was a leap forward for public perceptions of a gay man as just another guy with problems of his own. There has been a significant change in societal attitude in my lifetime. There may be more change as Generations X, Y, and Next age, and bring their view points with them.

DR

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I take a stand against homosexuality because anything that's good for TM can't possibly be good for the rest of the planet.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I take a stand against homosexuality because anything that's good for TM can't possibly be good for the rest of the planet.

Which planet are you currently on?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Which planet are you currently on?

All of them.

 

[American]

When I was a teen, for example, any girl who was not a virgin was considered a whore.

Girls still judge other girls just as harshly. No Christian influence, they are merely being competitive.

that sexuality itself be demystified

How exciting... sex without mystery. And if you think that shame is inhibitory, then no wonder you're gay. You will never understand what girls are looking for (which makes you even more gay, naturally). Shame is a motivator.


The queers will not rest until sex is nothing more than a repulsive anatomy lesson for all ages. No shame, no mystery.


TURNED ON, ladies? What great men you have waiting for you, once the faggots and dykes take over... setting ever-lower expectations for what you and your children truly deserve.


Both in public policy and personal relations, liberals trade people's futures for gay sex.

 

[Darth Rotor]

any Christian country is going to have some pretty messed up concepts of women and sex - indeed the ideal biblical portrayal of womanhood is someone at once both a virgin and a mother....talk about unobtainable goals*.....

[*turkey basters aside.....]

I note that many on this board suggest that America is most certainly not a Christian country, so of course that wouldn't be a problem, right?

If you refer to Christian influences on culture, sure, but I suggest you consider the impact of America's "sexual revolution" of the 1960's and 1970's. All that blunted its force was herpes and AIDS. Unwanted pregnancies have been troubling to deal with for a very long time. What has changed recently is the flexibility in approach.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Girls still judge other girls just as harshly. No Christian influence, they are merely being competitive.

Perhaps the coarsening of common parlance is to blame, the term used in my high school days was, as noted above, sluts.

How exciting... sex without mystery. And if you think that shame is inhibitory, then no wonder you're gay. You will never understand what girls are looking for (which makes you even more gay, naturally). Shame is a motivator.

Huh? Those thoughts fit together poorly.

The queers will not rest until sex is nothing more than a repulsive anatomy lesson for all ages. No shame, no mystery.

How about no guilt, fewer personality disorders. Sex is not to be taken lightly, given its design purpose is making babies. That doesn't mean it has to be cloaked in mystery. Sex is also a positive feedback deal. When it is undertaken as more than carnal mechanics, it can cement a spiritual bond between a man and a woman. (That's my experience, your mileage may vary.) I'll let others speak for their own experiences.

TURNED ON, ladies? What great men you have waiting for you, once the faggots and dykes take over... setting ever-lower expectations for what you and your children truly deserve.

Both in public policy and personal relations, liberals trade people's futures for gay sex.

Speaking of the coarsened dialogue , how did you get there from the OP? Seems like canned commentary.

Do you have any thoughts of your own?

DR

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Both in public policy and personal relations, liberals trade people's futures for gay sex.

We're all riding the speedwagon down the hershey highway.

 

[Dr Adequate]

How exciting... sex without mystery.

Don't worry --- it'll still be a mystery to you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

any Christian country is going to have some pretty messed up concepts of women and sex - indeed the ideal biblical portrayal of womanhood is someone at once both a virgin and a mother....talk about unobtainable goals*.....

[*turkey basters aside.....]

Evidence that non christian countries are better? Everywhere seems to have issues with sex in some fashion.

 

[billydkid]

Wow. I don't actually happen to be gay. The way I described things were the way they were when I was a teen. It was the ultimate mark of shame for a girl to become pregnant out of marriage. Maybe demystify is not the right word. Lets face it men and women will always be mysteries to each other and they will excite each other because of that mystery, but that's on a personal level. The mystification I'm talking about involves exalting sexuality to the level of a war between God and the devil, sin and evil versus godliness, earth and nature versus the spiritual.

The sexual revolution was really a myth in certain respects. Sure there was a revolution with the easy availability of contraception and the pill particularly and the option of being able to view sex as a recreational activity as much as procreational one. But the so called sexual revolution was still within the context of our distorted views of sexuality and used the same emotional and loaded language. Nothing changed fundamentally. The things that people were already doing came out into the open a little more, but they were still dirty and they were still sinful. Nobody decided sex wasn't sinful any more, they just decided to tolerate more sinfulness.

I have to say, sex is very significant and powerful and I can understand how it has become such a focal point in our existence and how it has gotten so mixed up in our religions. And there is something to be said for the forbidden aspect of sex contributing to its appeal. Who knows, maybe without any taboos sex would not be nearly as pleasurable, at least from a certain aspect. But the sheer power and pleasurableness of "in love" sex has nothing to do with taboo. It would be overwhelming whatever your attitude toward sex is. I really believe that much of the fear surrounding sex involves the passion and emotional aspect which sometimes is associated with it. Our real fear has nothing to do sex itself, but with the danger of losing control emotionally. Reduced to nothing but the act itself it becomes, I guess, nothing more than using another person to jerk off. As a veteran of such activity since my early teenage years I can say the mere physical pleasure aspect of it is not enough to save it from becoming merely tedious.

Sometimes I half way think it could be better to live in severely repressed times or places. When people would remark about such things as a "well turned ankle". Can you imagine the thrill of seeing an entire leg!!! I guess I would have to sum up like this. I have mixed feelings about sex like so many others. While I couldn't think of anything cooler than being invited to a party at the Playboy Mansion and being taken into a room by a couple of gorgeous playmate - ultimately, that sort of thing, were it readily available to you, would become empty. (Though I would not be adverse to finding out for myself.)

I believe it is the emotional aspect of sex that really scares people - or at least that is one of the aspects that scares people. or maybe people are afraid of sex becoming merely a casual activity devoid of any deeper significance. I don't seriously think there is any danger of that on a broad scale. The way I look at it, any time you have two people not harming each other or anyone else and enjoying each other and giving pleasure to each other - in a world where so many routinely harm each other - there are a million other things more worth getting all worked up about. And I don't care how you cut it, people still get all worked up about it even when it doesn't involve their participation at all. As far as the original intent of my OP post - I believe the intolerance for homosexuality has its roots in our intolerance for sexuality itself and to focus on homosexuality is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[billydkid]

Girls still judge other girls just as harshly. No Christian influence, they are merely being competitive.





How exciting... sex without mystery. And if you think that shame is inhibitory, then no wonder you're gay. You will never understand what girls are looking for (which makes you even more gay, naturally). Shame is a motivator.


The queers will not rest until sex is nothing more than a repulsive anatomy lesson for all ages. No shame, no mystery.


TURNED ON, ladies? What great men you have waiting for you, once the faggots and dykes take over... setting ever-lower expectations for what you and your children truly deserve.


Both in public policy and personal relations, liberals trade people's futures for gay sex.

I'd report your post, but I can't stop laughing. Whether you mean to be or not, A, you are a funny, funny guy. Actually, you know, I have not had a lot of problems with women and relationships once I got past my awkward years.

 

[Beerina]

The next few thousand years should be interesting. Social pressures until recently provided the mechanism necessary to keep gay males mating with females, and thus reproducing.

With those largely removed, natural tendencies are free to reign (as it should be.) However, evolution continues merrily onwards and doesn't give a rat's ass about sociology. "Gay tendencies", for lack of a better term, will be selected against whereas, in 1800s or the year 2302 BC, such was not selected against as those with such tendencies mated with women because of social pressure.

 

[casebro]

The next few thousand years should be interesting. Social pressures until recently provided the mechanism necessary to keep gay males mating with females, and thus reproducing.

With those largely removed, natural tendencies are free to reign (as it should be.) However, evolution continues merrily onwards and doesn't give a rat's ass about sociology. "Gay tendencies", for lack of a better term, will be selected against whereas, in 1800s or the year 2302 BC, such was not selected against as those with such tendencies mated with women because of social pressure.

Huh? Homosexuality is hereditary? That's certainly anti-intuitive. Links? Studies? Twin studies?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

 

[Upchurch]

Huh? Homosexuality is hereditary? That's certainly anti-intuitive. Links? Studies? Twin studies?

I can't give you studies, but I'd argue that it does make sense, evolutionarily speaking, from a population view.

All arguments I've heard long this line can be boiled down to this: Finite resources in a given system become more and more diluted amongst an ever increasing population base. The presence of productive (but not reproductive) homosexual adults in the population provides useful labor and development of resources without adding to the over population. In short, homosexuals are beneficial to a species because they help put limits on the population without being a burden upon it.

The modern everyday example of this that I've been told is the gay uncle bequeathes his assets to his nieces and nephews when he dies. The uncle's assets are essentially re-invested back into his siblings' children thus increasing their chances of survival.

 

[Lonewulf]

How exciting... sex without mystery. And if you think that shame is inhibitory, then no wonder you're gay. You will never understand what girls are looking for (which makes you even more gay, naturally). Shame is a motivator.

"I'm so ashamed of myself... let's have sex!"

The queers will not rest until sex is nothing more than a repulsive anatomy lesson for all ages. No shame, no mystery.

Ah yes... "The queers", with their wicked anti-American anti-sex agenda. Don't worry, God agrees with ya on those queers! That's why He made AIDS, right?

TURNED ON, ladies? What great men you have waiting for you, once the faggots and dykes take over... setting ever-lower expectations for what you and your children truly deserve.

Why would women care what gay men want? They're, y'know, gay. Now, bisexuals on the other hand...

Both in public policy and personal relations, liberals trade people's futures for gay sex.

Those darn liberals.

American, seriously: Grow up.