posted on October 21, 2001 09:39:26 PM new
hey Spaz, don't look at me!
I don't do TV!
Guess I got a little carried away with krs calling homosexuals tribes, explaining "tribe" was being used to describe a "primitive grouping".
it got my skivvies in a bunch.
and so I digress, once again ...
sorry 'bout that!
posted on October 21, 2001 10:04:35 PM new
You've made a big mistake in leaving out the need for procreation as basic to the survival of all tribes, groups, what have you, and that was my only point. Homosexuals as a general assumption do not contribute to the continuation of the group and thereby are by necessity the first to be termed nonessential. Having determined that, when someone member of soandso tribe asks why the development would be to establish an authority, if only to save the repititious explanation. That authority might very often have been another segment of the group which did not procreate, perhaps a deranged member unable to foster attraction. Using that example of a deranged person when the question why arose the answer would be 'because he said so'. When the followup question 'why him' came the answer might be 'because he's out of his gourd'.
It's a very small move then from 'gourd' to 'god', a linquistic abberation, like a southern accent perhaps.
posted on October 21, 2001 10:08:47 PM new
>>>Homosexuals as a general assumption do not contribute to the continuation of the group and thereby are by necessity the first to be termed nonessential<<<
Perhaps the contribution of the homosexuals is population control.
posted on October 21, 2001 10:14:24 PM new
population control, i think, would be the last concern of a primitive tribe. they need bodies to fill out the groups that perform needed functions.
posted on October 21, 2001 10:22:17 PM new
If they do not produce offspring, there are less mouths to feed ... more time spent hunting rather than caring for an extended family ... smaller chickee hunts to be built ...
It is possible.
God created everyone for a reason.
The pieces make up the whole.
posted on October 21, 2001 10:31:59 PM newHow about Andrew Sullivan? Or, Camille Paglia?
I've heard of Paglia here and there, not Sullivan, though, not to my memory anyway. And even if they are advocates for alternate lifestyles (as I assume from your post), their impact and notoriety can't hold a candle to Falwell's and Robertson's.
posted on October 21, 2001 10:45:44 PM new
Well, Sullivan and Paglia are not so much famous (or infamous would be better) for being proponents of alternate lifestyles as they are for being very rigid, very noisy critics of alternate lifestyles.
I'd say Sullivan, currently, is pretty dern notorious. He's an HIV-positive gay guy, British, Irish-heritaged (or Irish born, can't remember) vocal advocate of the Tory party, living here now as a strong proponent of American Right-Wing politics, and a harsh critic of what he sees as the failings of mainstream (if that's the right word) gay society.
I think either of them would give Falwell et. al a run for their money.
posted on October 22, 2001 06:23:31 AM newPerhaps the contribution of the homosexuals is population control.
Anybody read the classic novel by Joe Haldeman called "The Forever War"? The story follows a solider in an intersteller war that, because of the relativistic effects of near lightspeed travel, lasts thousands of years. Every time he finishes a battle he finds that hundreds of years have past at home. Well, during one of his visits back home, he discovers that earth has popularized homosexuality as a way of fighting overpopulation. Men are encouraged to be as feminine as possible [wearing makeup and frilly clothes], women are encouraged to be as masculine as possible, and the returing soldier is looked upon as a total freak. Births, when necessary, are done by in vitro fertilization, and when the solider talks about it all being so "unnatural" he is told "well, back in the stone age it was 'natural' to slaughter other animals for food instead of eating synthesized proteins the way we do now, so just because something is 'natural' doesn't make it right" [or words to that effect]. Great book, and I'm proud to have met the author and have my first edition copy autographed.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
spelling boo-boos....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 22, 2001 06:24 AM ]
posted on October 22, 2001 07:06:07 AM new
I was just reading this thread and really have no opinion on the topic but godzillatemple , the story line of that book had me bouncing around the room like daffy duck! that one would be filed under Z for zany......man o man (don't know how to do a smiley sorry). it actually hurt my small brain reading the plot. wow ...i am going to lay down now.
posted on October 22, 2001 08:12:04 AM new
I suppose I should answer the question posed in this thread. This is a topic I have rarely discussed with others, and never before in a public forum such as this. So please bear with me if I tend to ramble a bit [yeah, yeah, I know -- you’re all used to it by now ]
"Church or conscience", eh? Well, seeing as how I stopped going to church a few years ago and have never really had a strong belief in God, I suppose I’ll have to go with "conscience". Of course, to be honest, I have to also factor in the way I was raised which, even though I may not agree with everything I was taught, does probably still have an effect on how I view the world.
As for how I actually view homosexuality….
Well, first off, I have to say that I am not homosexual, and therefore kind of feel that I’m not really entitled to an opinion on the subject. Without personal experience, it’s kind of hypocritical of me to start talking about whether it is "right" or "wrong" or whether it is wholly a matter of choice or simply the way that people are born. That doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions on the subject [heck, I have opinions on just about EVERYTHING], but it does mean that I don’t have any dogmatic beliefs, and it also means that I am sure as heck not going to try to impose my beliefs on other people.
And just what ARE those beliefs, you may be asking? Well, I happen to believe that homosexuality is, in fact, "wrong". Not sinful [which would be silly, given my stated lack of religious beliefs], but wrong in an evolutionary and even societal way. From an evolutionary standpoint, I just don’t believe that nature favors a situation where procreation is not an option. Of course, given the high number of creative geniuses who are homosexual [ignoring the question of which is the cause and which is the effect], I suppose it’s possible that homosexuals serve a different purpose in the natural scheme other than procreation. I am not the Lorax, I don’t speak for the trees, and I don’t pretend to know what "nature" really has in mind for us.
From a societal standpoint, I also tend to think that homosexuality is wrong in the sense that it goes against the traditional family structure. It is, in a sense, disruptive. Whether our society has its basis in nature or whether it’s solely a human construct, the fact is that our present society finds a measure of stability through the notion of the "traditional" family. And yes, I’m disturbed by the notion of homosexuals wanting to raise children by themselves, to be honest. Not because I think that they are turning children into homosexuals, but because the children will be deprived of the chance to grow up with both a positive male and female parental role model which may have a harmful effect on them later in life. And yes, I realize that not all heterosexual marriages provide particularly good gender role models, either – I’m just as disturbed at the thought of a wife beater raising kids. Having said all that, though, I also realize that the society I am talking about is MY society, which is why I want to preserve its stability. Just because something is disruptive to the status quo doesn’t mean it is necessarily bad, especially since the status quo may itself be flawed and in need of a little disruption.
I honestly don’t know if homosexuality is purely a matter of genetics, purely a matter of environment and/or choice, a mixture of both, or what. I know that recent studies have indicated a genetic tendency, at least in male homosexuals, but I believe that the evidence was mostly statistical in nature [i.e., tracing the family lines of known homosexual men and discovering how many of their male relatives were also homosexual], and not because of any "gay gene" being discovered. Also, given the abuse many homosexuals endure in today’s society, I can certainly appreciate that many people would not "choose" to endure such abuse if it weren’t a matter of biological necessity. And if homosexuality is primarily a matter of how you are born, I guess I would consider homosexuality to be a mistake of nature [or perhaps "mutation" would be a better tem?] Does that mean I think homosexuals need to be "cured"? No, since not all mutations are necessarily harmful, and if somebody is actually happy with who they are, why on earth would anybody want to "cure" them? But the thought of homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization and a donor egg/sperm to perpetuate the "mistake" does make me a bit apprehensive [or perhaps "threatened" is a better word].
At the same time, however, there are certainly known cases of identical twins where one is homosexual and the other isn’t, and as I mentioned above, the latest studies don’t seem to apply to women. And I can’t help noticing the number [though certainly not all, or even the majority] of homosexuals of both genders who are attracted to members of their gender who outwardly appear to be members of the opposite gender. If a man is attracted to another man who appears and acts extremely feminine, or a woman is attracted to another woman who appears and acts very masculine, I have to wonder whether the person is truly attracted to members of the same sex in general, or whether there are some other issues involved.
Those are my beliefs on the subject, in a nutshell. I don’t believe homosexuality is a sin, and I don’t look upon homosexuals as sinners. I do have a number of homosexual acquaintances, co-workers and, yes, even friends. I don’t think they are less human than I am, or any less deserving of basic human dignity. I don’t make fun of them, and I value their input and contributions to society. I don’t "spew hatred" towards those who are different from me, nor will I stand idly by while others do so. At the same time, though, I happen to agree with the various "defense of marriage" legislations that would prohibit homosexuals from marrying each other, and I’m sure that lessens me in the eyes of many people here. So be it.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
edited for clarification
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 22, 2001 01:42 PM ]
posted on October 22, 2001 08:31:31 AM new
When Darwin died, there had been discoveries in genetics which were unknown to him at the time of his dalliance about in boats. He deferred to those in questioning his theories.
posted on October 22, 2001 08:37:39 AM newSo we are so smart in the 21st century we can throw out the belief systems of our parents, grandparents, etc.?
Hard to say. In my case, my mother was raised an in an atheistic Jewish home by a mother whose entire family was wiped out during the Holocaust, and my father was raised in a semi-religious Jewish family that went to Temple on high holidays and that was about it. My parents then converted to a rather strict Christian faith when I was about four years old. So, by turning away from the faith in which I was raised, I'm not sure if I am rejecting the belief systems of my parents and grandparents or embracing it....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 22, 2001 08:44:02 AM new
"From a societal standpoint, I also tend to think that homosexuality is wrong in the sense that it goes against the traditional family structure. It is, in a sense, disruptive. Whether our society has its basis in nature or whether it’s solely a human construct, the fact is that our present society finds a measure of stability through the notion of the "traditional" family"
So how about all those men and women who aren't homosexual and don't get married (our spinsters aunts or Garrison Keillor's Norwegian batchelor farmers, for example), or who get married and don't have children? Are they as disruptive as homosexuals, since they're not continuing the "traditional" family structure either?
posted on October 22, 2001 08:53:49 AM newSo how about all those men and women who aren't homosexual and don't get married? Are they as disruptive as homosexuals, since they're not continuing the "traditional" family structure either?
Well, speaking from personal experience [being a 35 year old bachelor], I can say that yes, I am a disruptive influence to society and should be stopped at all costs. Any cute, single women out there who wish to help "stop" me from being disruptive can send a picture and a brief description to the e-mail address posted in my profile.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 22, 2001 09:14:33 AM new
Perhaps homosexuals are a response to crowding to reduce population. I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of gay populations in urban vs. rural areas?
Even populations that are not in an urban area may experience crowding such as people on the ocean confined to a small ship.
posted on October 22, 2001 11:06:22 AM new
Church? Conscience? What does it matter.
I have never seen a society such as ours that is so concerned with what goes on in the bedrooms or privacy of others' sexual lives.
(There is a flamboyancy (sp) that exists for a part of the population no matter whether they are heterosexual, gay, bisexual, asexual, or whatever. I don't appreciate anyone's sexuality of any type being thrust in my face.)
Why are we even discussing other people's sex lives? I don't discuss my neighbors sex life. Why would I care about it?
posted on October 22, 2001 11:16:20 AM new
I agree luculent.
I'd still like to find out the answer to my question.....Terri, maybe this is a good one to ask you. Take away God, religion, etc., and tell me why you think homosexuality is wrong.
Breinhold (waving Hi!) Just type a colon and a capital D side by side and you get a laughing smile. A colon and a bracket (Above the zero), makes a smile, and a semi-colon and a bracket makes a wink. OR you can type
a square bracket [ and ] with the word smile, wink, etc. in between and you get it.
sorry 'bout that!
