posted on January 5, 2003 12:16:14 PM new
At birth, human sexuality is undefined and focuses on the need for food. It is a long and complicated process to move from the mother's breast, through the self, to taking an object of the opposite sex. Along the way, there are plenty of opportunities for regression or substitution (fixation) of the wrong object. Most, but not all, people eventually develop a proper sexual "instinct."
So, in a sense, we are all repressing incorrect sexual desires to some degree. However, the argument that those vehemently opposed to homosexuality are in fact homosexuals themselves is incorrect.
Our society does tolerate homosexuality to a limited extent, perhaps because it allows us to live vicariously through the self-indulgence of others. But of course, without procreation, we would not survive as a species.
posted on January 5, 2003 12:39:43 PM new
>develop a proper sexual "instinct."
Something interesting to add to that notion. I've watched a few medical shows where they describe how fetuses become males.
As most folks know nowadays, every fetus starts off as a female - even males! Twice during the pregnancy, if the fetus is genetically a male, the mother produces a huge amount of Testosterone. Once during the first or second trimester, and the other definitely during the third.
The testosterone has the effect of making the chemical change the fetus from female to male and to wire the forming brain appropriately so that it will seek out the opposite sex at the appropriate time to replicate (procreate).
It has been suggested that sometimes when a woman is pregnant with a male fetus and drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc, the mother can fail to produce an adequate amount of testosterone at the proper time. Hermaphrodites are an example of a lack of such testosterone during the first chemical installment. The brain is not forming during the first time, so it is the second time that alters the brain chemistry irrevocably. It literally hardwires the brain towards "a proper sexual "instinct." as twinsoft said.
It has been suggested that during this second dousing of testosterone, homosexual men may not receive enough of the chemical at the right time in order to give them that "proper sexual instinct."
Certainly, there are other factors that can change one's sexual preferences. But I thought that this was an interesting one. Say, for instance, that a mother failed to produce little or any at all testosterone during the second phase and the male came out hardwired to meet and mate with other males. Should we do like Leviticus states, to kill them for it? Should we tell them a lie and say that it is simply their "choice" and that they can change their desires if they simply wanted to?
Another thought is that What If the fetus is genetically a female, but the mother gives off a bit of testosterone at the same time to that fetus that it normally would for a male fetus? Would a female fetus' brain become hardwired towards meeting and mating of the female sex?
The question then becomes for me, if this birthing thing is not mechanical; that is, not perfect and some testosterone slips at the wrong time to the wrong fetus or not enough to the right fetus at the right time, then a lot of people may be wired for "a proper sexual instinct" but have these alternate desires that we hear about so much.
Sigmund Freud, who has been so disproved in many ways, is also not disproved in just as many ways. One thing that he stated that I recall is that of 100 persons, 10 would be strictly homosexual and 10 would be strictly heterosexual and the other 80 would be bouncing somewhere in-between. I'm sure that he meant that as a rough generalization, but if at all accurate, it paints a pretty weird picture. After all, could you picture George Bush as a homosexual? Wupps! Don't answer that!
posted on January 5, 2003 12:52:31 PM new
That's interesting twinsoft & Borillar. But do you think it's possible that homosexuality is as normal as being straight? If God's plan (I'm using God as an example) was just quantity, it would be a silly plan. But if the plan was quality, homosexuals and heterosuxuals would be the norm.
posted on January 5, 2003 01:22:42 PM new
If God didn't mean for these things to be, then why did he make them so?
That's what has always confused me about the Bible. Here God goes and makes a lot of people what they are born like, supposedly. Then He makes rules against those people or that behavior that He created. Does that sound rational to you?
posted on January 5, 2003 01:27:17 PM newAfter all, could you picture George Bush as a homosexual? Wupps! Don't answer that!
AHA! Using Borillar's own argument vis a vis Falwell's homophobia, I've finally figured out his fascination/obsession with George Bush. He's really a "secret admirerer", or is that "desirer". LoL!
posted on January 5, 2003 02:20:14 PM new
I think it's because we've removed ourselves from God replacing 'him' with religion Borillar. They're 2 separate issues imo. Without sounding too sappy, I think that people created the Bible but God created your heart. That should be your guide, not the Bible. If you just lived the way you wanted and weren't afraid of being judged all the time (by God or other people), life would be very different than it is today!
posted on January 5, 2003 05:24:32 PM new
The Goldren Rule, Kraftdinner, is what you are saying. I believe that if we have a "soul" or "spirit" or something of us that goes on after the death of the body, where did that come from? If you believe that your immortal soul was created by God, then a part of God is always with you, whether you want Him to be there or not. That perhaps it is our purpose in life to discover where that part of God that is within ourselves and to merge with it and then to live our lives by it. God does not foresake us - he cannot, as he is a part of us. That is another notion that I dislike in the Christian Chuirsch teachings: that somehow we have "lost" God and that to "get back" we have to go through an intermediary, a.k.a. Jesus, a.k.a. the Church. Perhaps your approach is the right one, then, Kraftdinner: that we should foresake all religions as Rulebooks and let that part of God that is a part of us be our guide through life. That's a nice idea that you have.
posted on January 5, 2003 06:24:14 PM new
Yes, (as always) you understand perfectly Borillar. How can anyone have a personal relationship with God if you are told how to think? Religion doesn't work. That has been proven since it started. Bibles, like laws were meant for stupid people (I'm not trying to be mean) as a means of control, and it's worked so far. Who's not going to obey words that came from God himself? The stories are derivitives of the 10 commandments. That's all that needs to be written, then you can get on with finding the God that lives inside you and start living a life as an individual, regardless of your sexuality, hair colour, DNA, etc.....
posted on January 9, 2003 02:20:11 AM new
There have been some pretty interesting comments in this thread.
junquemama,
is it true that women are really just starting to take over? I've noticed it for some time now!
gravid,
you better lock your car doors when you go to that drive in for a burger. I would have been offended too!
bob9585,
what about the people who have never had any religious training or background, or are atheist? How or why would they be homophobic since they have no religious beliefs?
LindaK,
your comment make sense to me. "This making fun of could be seen the same as any other 'difference' we humans have and not really have anything to do with sex at all. It's not unusual for people to make fun of anything they can't/don't understand or identify with."
kraftdinner,
I think that you may have said it the best with your comment. "The more homophobic a guy is, the more I think he's a homo himself. Take Jerry Falwell. He has the most severe case of homophobia going. Doesn't it make you think he's hiding something?"
I think the most stupid statment that he ever made was about the one regarding the purple Teletubby. The children's TV show character, which he called gay because it was purple, in his words, a well known gay color.
When I was growning up, my brothers and sister and I would sometimes called each other names. My mother's favorite response was "tell them, it takes one to know one".
posted on January 9, 2003 02:24:58 AM new
Falwell was just plain silly regarding the purple tele-tubby. In his shoes, I would have been much more concerned about the green one with the dildo on its head....
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
