NationStates Jolt Archive

That right there is unnatural. Might I remind you that living organisms are defined as having the capability to metabolize, respond to stimulus, and among other things reproduce. Homosexuals cannot reproduce unless they go against their "nature."

And so therefore, homosexuals are not living organisms?

go think about that some more. There are certain characteristics of sexual fluids that do neutralize antigens.

There are some other characteristics of sexual fluids that transmit disease...

And so therefore, homosexuals are not living organisms?
Well, the way the fundies see it, pretty much.

Of course, all of this overlooks the reality that homosexuals are every bit as capable of reproducing as heterosexuals are. True, homosexual sex does not typically result in pregnancy, but neither does oral sex...are they prepared to claim that individuals who enjoy oral sex are unable to reproduce?

Well, the way the fundies see it, pretty much.

Of course, all of this overlooks the reality that homosexuals are every bit as capable of reproducing as heterosexuals are. True, homosexual sex does not typically result in pregnancy, but neither does oral sex...are they prepared to claim that individuals who enjoy oral sex are unable to reproduce?


What The Cristians can claim that yes. Sex for purpose other than reprocration is called fornaction and a sin doncha know!?!?

I guess that is the real reason for Christianites dislike of queerness, not because people are Gay, but because they are sinners, heheh and I would add unrepentant sinners at that!

Because they're religious nut-jobs? Actually, in regards to homosexuality I think most religious types are. There's nout wrong with homosexuality, no matter what some dusty, controversial book tells you.



he is right on the money there
although i will give credit to my christian friend who does not frown upon it
but accepts peoples decisions

What The Cristians can claim that yes. Sex for purpose other than reprocration is called fornaction and a sin doncha know!?!?

I guess that is the real reason for Christianites dislike of queerness, not because people are Gay, but because they are sinners, heheh and I would add unrepentant sinners at that!
Yeah right 9/10 of all anti-gay people that I have met are really motivated by the "Ick" factor

They just blame it on "Sins" so they dont appear the asshats they really are

I personally believe that its the same christians that believe that God is all powerfull and everything comes form him that frown on gays. So how is it sinful if its from God? I believe there is nothing wrong with it and agree that calling it sinfull is just a way to cover up personal opinions.

What The Cristians can claim that yes. Sex for purpose other than reprocration is called fornaction and a sin doncha know!?!?

The thing is, there are plenty of other behaviors people choose to undertake which do not lead to reproduction. Praying, for example. If homosexuality is a sin because it doesn't make babies, then why not prayer?

At least homosexual sex has an outside chance of accidentally impregnating somebody, like if a heterosexual were to accidentally drop from the sky into the middle of a homosexual orgy.

Hell, Christians claim that pornography is sinful, even though recent studies have shown that viewing certain kinds of pornography will INCREASE sperm production in males (and thereby increase their ability to make fetuses).

Why, if I didn't know any better, I might get the idea that the Christian dislike for fornication isn't really about babies at all! *gasp*


I guess that is the real reason for Christianites dislike of queerness, not because people are Gay, but because they are sinners, heheh and I would add unrepentant sinners at that!
Blasphemer. It's all about the widdle babies! We swear it is!

Incorrect, I'm afraid. Altruism is NOT a trait that is selected for. Natural selection works on the INDIVIDUAL, not on a species or "tribe" level. An animal that sacrificed its own reproductive success for the group would not produce as many young of its own (logically), and thus would not pass on as many genes.

Not *as* many, of course. But a homosexual animal that helps rear its own siblings, nieces, and nephews has helped ensure the survival of its genetic material in much the same way as an animal that rears its own children and grandchildren. It isn't direct reproductive success, but it does increase the likelihood of certain traits being passed on.

*snip*
These are just a few examples. I can keep going if you like :).

I'd add that at least one study has shown a strong correlation between male homosexuality and female fecundity on the maternal side. This suggests that some genetic trait which contributes to male homosexuality may, in women, contribute to fecundity. Thus while the male homosexual *may* be less reproductively successful, his mother, maternal aunts, and possibly sisters (although the latter correlation wasn't checked) are likely to be more reproductively successful from receiving the same trait.


Sorry, can't really back that up, you'll just have to belive what you want. I can tell you that it wasnt the teacher, but the gay "parents" that were saying that.

...which means it wasn't being taught in the schools, unless the parents were teachers there....

Sorry, I meant to say that if the government only supports the theory of evolution, they are supporting a "religion".

...which is incorrect.

The government supports the teaching of science. Science has come to a theory known as the theory of evolution, just as it has come to the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, etc. If you would like to suggest that the government should not support the teaching of science, that is your own perogative, but it makes no sense to label any portion of science as a religion.

I'm trying to say that evolution is a belief-just like religion.

...which is exactly like saying, "I'm trying to say that gravity is a belief - just like religion."

They arn't exactly "neutral", do they talk about God, no. So it works in favor of athiests. Being silent on the topic of religion supports athiesm.

Wrong. The only way to support atheism would be to state, "There is no God." Instead, science avoids the question altogether. It works equally well whether there is a God or not.

Yeah right 9/10 of all anti-gay people that I have met are really motivated by the "Ick" factor

They just blame it on "Sins" so they dont appear the asshats they really are
Well, but if you think about it, the "ick factors" is actually kind of complex. I mean, why should there be an "ick" factor when two men or two women have sex, but not when a woman and man have sex? There are fluids in every case, after all. And most of the "ick" factor seems to revolve around their disgust with anal sex, even though penile sex is pretty much the same thing: an area of the body used for excreting waste is also used for sexual purposes. If they are so grossed out by anuses being involved in sex play, why aren't they also grossed out by the idea of a man's pee-organ being inside a woman's body?

The thing is, there are plenty of other behaviors people choose to undertake which do not lead to reproduction. Praying, for example. If homosexuality is a sin because it doesn't make babies, then why not prayer?

At least homosexual sex has an outside chance of accidentally impregnating somebody, like if a heterosexual were to accidentally drop from the sky into the middle of a homosexual orgy.

Hell, Christians claim that pornography is sinful, even though recent studies have shown that viewing certain kinds of pornography will INCREASE sperm production in males (and thereby increase their ability to make fetuses).

Why, if I didn't know any better, I might get the idea that the Christian dislike for fornication isn't really about babies at all! *gasp*


Blasphemer. It's all about the widdle babies! We swear it is!


Blasphemer me! Naaaa not I! I spoke ill of Criatianity not of God :)

Well, but if you think about it, the "ick factors" is actually kind of complex. I mean, why should there be an "ick" factor when two men or two women have sex, but not when a woman and man have sex? There are fluids in every case, after all. And most of the "ick" factor seems to revolve around their disgust with anal sex, even though penile sex is pretty much the same thing: an area of the body used for excreting waste is also used for sexual purposes. If they are so grossed out by anuses being involved in sex play, why aren't they also grossed out by the idea of a man's pee-organ being inside a woman's body?
I was not even talking anal sex

In fact most people I have met are more turned off by the simple act of two guys kissing much less the more intimate details of their PERSONAL sex life

I dont know why some people are grossed out by that ... but turned on by two girls doing the same. People are not entirly logical

And you know what thats fine just dont pretend to try and justify their shortcomings in being able to deal with how two people express their love to one and other

Not *as* many, of course. But a homosexual animal that helps rear its own siblings, nieces, and nephews has helped ensure the survival of its genetic material in much the same way as an animal that rears its own children and grandchildren. It isn't direct reproductive success, but it does increase the likelihood of certain traits being passed on.

On the contrary, that most certainly IS direct reproductive success! Reproductive success = getting your genes into the next generation, and getting that generation to adulthood so they can reproduce in turn.

What you describe is also not 'altruism.' Altruism would be if homosexuality decreased the individual's reproductive fitness in favor of increasing the reproductive fitness of others. From what we have seen, there are plenty of ways for homosexuality to be directly reproductively beneficial, though it may also help a community be more reproductively successful...that's just a bonus, from a biological perspective :).

What you are describing is the cases where homosexual behavior doesn't decrease reproductive fitness in the first place. That was my whole point. From a biological perspective, altruism is not selected for...and homosexuality is not altruistic in the species in which it is found. It is, rather, an alternate strategy for reproductive success, and the reason it thrives is because in those situations it is the best possible strategy for those organisms. The fact that it may enhance the reproductive success of OTHER organisms isn't a strike against it, nor does it show that homosexuality must be altruistic...after all, for a heterosexual to reproduce they must also help another heterosexual reproduce (by definition), yet we don't describe that as "altruism" in the biological sense.


I'd add that at least one study has shown a strong correlation between male homosexuality and female fecundity on the maternal side. This suggests that some genetic trait which contributes to male homosexuality may, in women, contribute to fecundity. Thus while the male homosexual *may* be less reproductively successful, his mother, maternal aunts, and possibly sisters (although the latter correlation wasn't checked) are likely to be more reproductively successful from receiving the same trait.

That is, of course, another possibility; homosexuality is a trait that is linked to some OTHER beneficial trait, one which is not going to be selected out of the population. In the case of humans, I don't think we have enough data to decide if this is the case or not. However, in other species we have identified concrete benefits to homosexual behavior, so it is possible that there are multiple forces at work in keeping homosexuality alive and well.

I was not even talking anal sex

In fact most people I have met are more turned off by the simple act of two guys kissing much less the more intimate details of their PERSONAL sex life

I dont know why some people are grossed out by that ... but turned on by two girls doing the same. People are not entirly logical

And you know what thats fine just dont pretend to try and justify your shortcomings in being able to deal with how two people express their love to one and other
But, again, you need to think about this more deeply.

Why would two men kissing provoke such a strong reaction, but not two women kissing? Clearly, homosexuality ITSELF is not what is grossing out these people you describe. If they were grossed out by homosexuality itself then two women would be just as icky as two men.

But, again, you need to think about this more deeply.

Why would two men kissing provoke such a strong reaction, but not two women kissing? Clearly, homosexuality ITSELF is not what is grossing out these people you describe. If they were grossed out by homosexuality itself then two women would be just as icky as two men.
I agree (and note I changed your to their to make it less personal was not trying to dig on you)

It is complex ... human emotions are complex

But in society to function with one and other in a just and fair way we have to sometimes not act on pure emoition. Where would we be if we let emotions make all the decisions for us.

I agree (and note I changed your to their to make it less personal was not trying to dig on you)

It is complex ... human emotions are complex

But in society to function with one and other in a just and fair way we have to sometimes not act on pure emoition. Where would we be if we let emotions make all the decisions for us.
Oh, I think we agree on the fundamental conclusion that homophobes are out to lunch. My point was that it's not as simple as a raw, uncomplicated "ick factor."

What I am getting at is that there are some fundamental social and sexual assumptions underlying homophobia, and there are reasons why MALE homosexuality gets a much stronger reaction than female homosexuality. There is a reason why men are more likely to be homophobic than women. And all of these reasons are tied up with the core reasons why homophobia exists in the first place.

On the contrary, that most certainly IS direct reproductive success! Reproductive success = getting your genes into the next generation, and getting that generation to adulthood so they can reproduce in turn.

Well, when I said "direct", I meant, you know, getting it on and having kids...hehe

What you describe is also not 'altruism.' Altruism would be if homosexuality decreased the individual's reproductive fitness in favor of increasing the reproductive fitness of others. From what we have seen, there are plenty of ways for homosexuality to be directly reproductively beneficial, though it may also help a community be more reproductively successful...that's just a bonus, from a biological perspective :).

Well, I think this is essentially what was described in the post you were replying to, albeit in a broader sense. I don't think the poster was really focussing on altruism so much as, passing on one's own genes by raising the children of those related to you.

That is, of course, another possibility; homosexuality is a trait that is linked to some OTHER beneficial trait, one which is not going to be selected out of the population. In the case of humans, I don't think we have enough data to decide if this is the case or not. However, in other species we have identified concrete benefits to homosexual behavior, so it is possible that there are multiple forces at work in keeping homosexuality alive and well.

Well, in my personal opinion, the factors that can contribute to sexuality are most likely pretty diverse. Some may be linked to other beneficial traits, some may simply not have adverse affects. And that's only if we're talking genetic traits. The various in utero possibilities have a place in any discussion of the "causes" of sexuality as well. I'm guessing its too complex a trait for us to ever pin down to an exact cause.

People are not entirly logical

Ahhhhh true words of wisdom there my friend. Now all we have to do , is teach all Atheists this little truth. Okay then perhaps not all of them but all of them that persist in calling me thick because I have no logical basis for my faith!

THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED FAITH, Y'KNOW!

Well, when I said "direct", I meant, you know, getting it on and having kids...hehe

I know, but I think it is important to be really clear around here. People labor under the misconception that making babies = reproductive fitness, which is totally incorrect. You know the difference, but then again you are not the standard forum-goer...you read the witchcraft we call "Science"!


Well, I think this is essentially what was described in the post you were replying to, albeit in a broader sense. I don't think the poster was really focussing on altruism so much as, passing on one's own genes by raising the children of those related to you.

Right, I just like to clarify that this kind of reproductive fitness is perfectly valid. This means that homosexual are NOT, as some claim, less reproductively fit. It's NOT about homosexuals selflessly giving up their own reproductive fitness for others. It's about homosexuality being as evolutionarily valid a solution as heterosexuality (among at least some organisms).


Well, in my personal opinion, the factors that can contribute to sexuality are most likely pretty diverse. Some may be linked to other beneficial traits, some may simply not have adverse affects. And that's only if we're talking genetic traits. The various in utero possibilities have a place in any discussion of the "causes" of sexuality as well. I'm guessing its too complex a trait for us to ever pin down to an exact cause.
No argument here. Hell, I personally don't find it really that interesting to try to pin it down, at least not from a debate standpoint. Who cares why people are gay? If being gay was a choice, like religious belief is, would that make it okay for us to deny consenting adults the freedom to make that choice for themselves? If being gay is biological, like hair color is, would it be right for us to force individuals to hide their natural selves or seek "treatment"?

The way I see it, homophobes must FIRST establish that homosexuality itself is a "problem" or needs "fixing," before any discussion can be pursued about the origins of the "problem." Because if it's not a problem, then we shouldn't be trying to fix it, no matter where it comes from.

The way I see it, homophobes must FIRST establish that homosexuality itself is a "problem" or needs "fixing," before any discussion can be pursued about the origins of the "problem." Because if it's not a problem, then we shouldn't be trying to fix it, no matter where it comes from.

Ahh so are we creeping onto where does homophobia come from?

I would suggest much the same as any sort of dislike or predudice, partly from the uniqe way our folx fuck us up, partly genetics, and mostly culture.

Ahh so are we creeping onto where does homophobia come from?

I would suggest much the same as any sort of dislike or predudice, partly from the uniqe way our folx fuck us up, partly genetics, and mostly culture.
Personally, I believe that homophobia is merely one aspect of heteronormativity and related hang-ups.

Heteronormativity is, basically, the idea that not only must everybody be heterosexual, but they also must be a certain kind of heterosexual. Sexism also stems from this idea, because heteronormativity states that men and women are fundamentally different animals who are "wired" with different needs and different purposes. Sexism is most often a reaction to anybody, heterosexual or otherwise, who refuses to comply with heteronormativity.

It's no coincidence that homophobes just happen to view "women's work" as "gay." "Gay" men are men who show "female" traits, like being able to cook, clean, dance, or express any emotion other than "THORG SMASH!" This is because homophobia really comes out of the insecurities these people have about heteronormativity. They have been taught that males and females MUST WORK A CERTAIN WAY, and homosexuality attacks that idea.

If two men can nurture a child together, then maybe males aren't naturally wired to be non-nurturing and incapable of diaper changing. AND THEN WHAT WILL BE OUR EXCUSE?!

If two women can create a fully-functioning household, then maybe women aren't helpless fairy princesses who need to be rescued and protected and supported. AND THEN HOW WILL WE CONVINCE THEM TO BE OUR HOUSEBOTS?!

These people are taught, from an early age, that men and women are only together because we need one another. Men are incapable of cleaning and cooking, and also need to have a uterus on hand for making strong sons, while women are incapable of anything other than cooking and cleaning and gestating The Manly Seed. If somebody suggests that maybe women don't NEED men, or that maybe men don't NEED women, then their entire system of relationships collapses.

Remember, these are people who teach their sons that women are naturally inferior to men, pretty much making it impossible for their sons to ever really love or cherish a woman in any meaningful way. These are people who teach their daughters that all men are beasts, and that men are just barely restrained by society/God/laws from abusing and raping women (which all men want to do, in their opinion). Only need, unhappy need, keeps heterosexual unions together.

Without need, why would women submit to the horrors of beastial men? Why would men condescend to spend time around women at all?

Homophobia is an expression of these fears. Homosexuality assaults some of the core principles on which their social structure is founded. This is also why homophobia and sexism usually thrive together, just as homophobia and anti-choice rhetoric are usually paired.

And that was a hell of a lot longer of a post than I was planning on. I think I dozed off for a bit in the middle, so I don't blame anybody else for doing the same.

Bottle, do you ever write a concise post? Just wondering, you always seem to be writing novellas of some type.

Bottle, do you ever write a concise post? Just wondering, you always seem to be writing novellas of some type.
Thorg smash.

My feelings exactly!:)

Thorg smash.


Oi less of the hetronomality huh!?!? hehe

Oi less of the hetronomality huh!?!? hehe
To be fair, heteronormativity has been flourishing for centuries, so I think I'm being pretty concise when I keep my post about it down to under a page.

I could have gone on and on for centuries, after all...

The way I see it, homophobes must FIRST establish that homosexuality itself is a "problem" or needs "fixing," before any discussion can be pursued about the origins of the "problem." Because if it's not a problem, then we shouldn't be trying to fix it, no matter where it comes from.

I certainly agree there. I just find it an interesting subject, so I can't help but wonder what makes one person hetero, another gay, another bisexual. It isn't a matter of, "How do we fix it?" - much more a matter of, "Hey! How does this work?!" hehe

Ahh so are we creeping onto where does homophobia come from?

Deep-seated fears of not being "normal" themselves?

I certainly agree there. I just find it an interesting subject, so I can't help but wonder what makes one person hetero, another gay, another bisexual. It isn't a matter of, "How do we fix it?" - much more a matter of, "Hey! How does this work?!" hehe

Yeah, we have that much in common. I just get turned off because so much of the "research" being done is really just a bunch of jackasses making things up to support the biases they hold. Like all the "proof" that women don't like sex as much as men, or the "proof" that homosexuals are all child abusers, or the "proof" that men are too stupid to do anything other than follow their testicles around.


Deep-seated fears of not being "normal" themselves?
Or perhaps deep-seated fears that their standards of "normal" aren't entirely healthy to begin with?

The word unnatural, is a suspect term by logical standards. Anything that can be proven to exist must by definition exist in the natural world, ergo nothing that exists and can be proven to exist is unnatural. There have been recorded instance of homosexuality among every mammalian species on this planet with the exception of badgers, which scientist still can not find any proof that they engage in sex at all. The fact is that homosexuality does play a part in evolution, those beings which do not breed do not pass on their genes, it does have a physical effect on those that practice it, reduced stress, release of endorphins, natural opiates and reduction of sexual pressure. The only topic in this thread that could be argued as being unnatural is christianity, since it is an ideal and does not truly affect the natural world except through the interaction of the ideal upon those that either follow or fight against it.

Oh, yeah, and Im a bisexual by nature, gay by choice, masognystic, masculinst, I enjoy sex with men and dislike sex with women due to the nature of the female mind frame. Out of the thirty other gay men I know, one of them could be seen as effeminate. Out of the dozen gay women I have known, only two of them could be seen as "butch" :fluffle:

Ahhhhh true words of wisdom there my friend. Now all we have to do , is teach all Atheists this little truth. Okay then perhaps not all of them but all of them that persist in calling me thick because I have no logical basis for my faith!

THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED FAITH, Y'KNOW!
Thats fine but faith is and should be a PERSONAL choice

The REASON we call you thick is because you try to use your un-provable assumptions and feelings to justify restricting our freedoms and life

Thorg smash.

Best response ever!

Or perhaps deep-seated fears that their standards of "normal" aren't entirely healthy to begin with?
Why must you antagonise them so? Why must you drop down to their level?

Biggots have been telling homosexuals that "their way of doing things isn't healthy, and, on some level, they know it" for generations. Why must you adopt their doctrines of hate for yourself?

Is it some strange attempt to appeal to them by couching your arguement in their language, or are you just so bitter over their repression that you just have to strike back?

Both arrangements work, and I think value judgements regardless of which side they come from are misguided.

"Value judgements" being exactly what?

Why must you antagonise them so? Why must you drop down to their level?

Biggots have been telling homosexuals that "their way of doing things isn't healthy, and, on some level, they know it" for generations. Why must you adopt their doctrines of hate for yourself?

She isn't. She's simply saying that trying to push people into set gender-roles isn't healthy - something that has quite a bit of evidence behind it.

It is perfectly healthy to be "masculine" or "feminine", if that is what a person wants. It is not healthy to be told that they must conform to some set version of masculinity or feminity.

Both arrangements work, and I think value judgements regardless of which side they come from are misguided.

What do you mean by "both arrangements"? Bottle is arguing for a society that doesn't make the arrangements for the individual - a society that allows the individual to "be themselves", as it were. The opposite, of course, is a society that tries to hold its individuals to strict gender roles that they may or may not meet.

"Value judgements" being exactly what?
The judgement that one way of structuring a society is inherently better than another way of structuring a society.

In particular, I was criticising Bottle's judgement (which was implicit rather than explicit) that the social structures the modern western world has adhered to for generations were inherently unhealthy. One way of arranging things is not better or worse than another, so long as all parties enter into the arrangement willingly.

The judgement that one way of structuring a society is inherently better than another way of structuring a society.

In particular, I was criticising Bottle's judgement (which was implicit rather than explicit) that the social structures the modern western world has adhered to for generations were inherently unhealthy. One way of arranging things is not better or worse than another, so long as all parties enter into the arrangement willingly.
Yet people don't enter into this one willingly but by force, and by having no other option...

Don't forget the dick and jane brainwashing of young children. Oh you just have to meet the right girl.

The message of what is an appropriate sexually is pervasive, add in the near brainwashing that occurs through the land on sunday morning bible classes for kids, and well, it's not a surprise queers commit suicide far more often than straights.

The judgement that one way of structuring a society is inherently better than another way of structuring a society.

In particular, I was criticising Bottle's judgement (which was implicit rather than explicit) that the social structures the modern western world has adhered to for generations were inherently unhealthy. One way of arranging things is not better or worse than another, so long as all parties enter into the arrangement willingly.

She didn't actually say that, Mr. Strawman. She said they seem to fear that it is unhealthy. I doubt she has ever suggested that a heterosexual entering a heterosexual relationship is inherently less healthy than a homosexual entering a homosexual relationship.

She didn't actually say that, Mr. Strawman. She said they seem to fear that it is unhealthy.

It's not a strawman. It's a difference between your interpretation and mine of her post. Seriusly, if you use terms like strawman enough in the wrong situation, they lose their impact. Use the term correctly or not at all.

I doubt she has ever suggested that a heterosexual entering a heterosexual relationship is inherently less healthy than a homosexual entering a homosexual relationship.
You're right. What she was talking about was traditional gender based roles. Whether my interpretation was correct or not, I believed she was saying that it was inherently unhealthy for men and women to conform to the roles western society assigns us. That women being nurturers and men being breadwinners is somehow an unhealthy way to divide the responsibilities in a relationship.

Homosexuals can not have children naturally, you are correct.

but to assume this makes them unnatural is an error, it in fact can be a huge benefit. Without the social/biological need to have and rear children homosexuals have the chance to do other things with their lives that can benefit mankind, examples being:

Walt Whitman
Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky
General Viscount Horatio Herbert Kitchener
Arthur Rimbaud
Oscar Wilde
John Maynard Keynes
Virginia Woolf
Alexander the Great
Lawrence of Arabia
Noel Coward
Socrates
Plato
Virgil
Leonardo da Vinci
Michaelangelo
Sir Francis Bacon
Shakespeare
Christopher Marlowe
Byron
Marlene Dietrich
Greta Garbo
W H Auden
Liberace
Truman Capote
Alan Mathison Turing... (1912-1954) British mathematician
Pioneer inventor of computer programming, "the Turing machine". Cracked the German Enigma Code during WWII. Awarded OBE and elected FRS. Forced to have hormone therapy for a gay offence, he ate an apple dipped in cyanide.



oh... and David (10th cent. BC) 2nd King of Israel (reign. c.1010-971/961 BC)
Slayer of Goliath, musician and military leader. Famous for his friendship with Jonathan (son of King Saul), whose early death he lamented: "Thy love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love for women."

and... St Anselm (1033/4-1109) Italian-French-British prelate and scholastic
Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093. Though committed to celibacy, wrote romantic love letters to former companions in Benedictine monastery of Bec in Normandy, indicating yearning and frustrated desire.

and... St Anselm (1033/4-1109) Italian-French-British prelate and scholastic
Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093. Though committed to celibacy, wrote romantic love letters to former companions in Benedictine monastery of Bec in Normandy, indicating yearning and frustrated desire.

and... Julius II (Giuliano Della Ròvere) (1443-1513) Italian pope
Established control of the Papal States over many territories. Patron of artists incl. Bramante and Raphael. Commissioned Sistine Chapel ceiling and his tomb from Michelangelo.

(see: http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/greatga3.htm)


You forgot one of the obvious:

Sappho, the lover of women

Before this might even looks like a criticism, thank you for making this point.:)

A lot of people you listed I agree with entirely. Some of them might have been or might not have been:rolleyes: Shakespeare might have been, based on interpretations of his relationship with his patron, but he did definitely write at least one sonnet directly addressed to a woman. He was married and had two kids, that doesn't necessarily mean he was heterosexual, but it does mean that he had sex at least once with a woman (they were twins). I don't honestly know. If I could go back in time and ask him questions that he would have to answer honestly that would be near the top of my list.:cool:

That is assuming that it is possible to convert (which it isn't).

I'm pretty sure it is possible to convert. There are many Christians who used to be gay, but who changed after they became Christians. My personal view is that medical strategies won't work; sin is a spiritual thing and so they can only change with the help of God. Medical associations are dominated by materialists who would be unwilling to consider this option.

Related topic: it seems that there are environmental causes for homosexuality, such as the fact that 90% of gay people were sexually abused, which could cause resentment and mess with who you are attracted to. Also, many feminists are gay, so there is a another huge environmental factor (disliking men) that is not genetic that causes them to be favorably disposed toward homosexuality. There are other examples too.

Also, i don't think that being attracted to someone of the same sex is wrong (just like it is not wrong for me to be attracted to women of the oppisite sex that i am not married to); it is only wrong if I act out my desires by lusting or having gay sex.

I think we should love homosexuals and try to understand them as they struggle with something that I could not imagine struggling with, and which many of them do not want to struggle with. I don't think being gay sends you to hell any more than other sins do.

Hint: That study has already been done for the brain (which is where attraction comes from). Result - homosexual men have certain brain structures similar to females that straight men do not. Further studies relating to homosexual brains have given the same result - there is a physiological difference.

Second, the other part is only because said son has been taught that guys are meant to be with girls AND NOT GUYS. EVER. THAT IT IS EVIL. Believe it or not, the one who is harming your son is the one who is teaching him this. If you don't believe me, you should meet one of my friends, who tried to kill herself multiple times after she realized that she was bisexual instead of straight, on account that it meant that she was evil and everyone would hate her (BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HER PARENTS AND EVERYONE ELSE SHE LOOKED UP TO WHEN SHE WAS YOUNG TOLD HER THIS). NOT on account of being bi.

I notice a lot of people misquote this study. Well, perhaps not misquote, but misrepresent the facts, not including all the information. This particular study also did a study on homosexual women and found out that they don't have brain structures similar to heterosexual men.

Related topic: it seems that there are environmental causes for homosexuality, such as the fact that 90% of gay people were sexually abused, which could cause resentment and mess with who you are attracted to. Also, many feminists are gay, so there is a another huge environmental factor (disliking men) that is not genetic that causes them to be favorably disposed toward homosexuality. There are other examples too.



I'm sorry where did you get that 90% number?

Bisexuality does not exist. Women who claim to be bi are attention whores, the men who claim to be bi are poofs in denial.


As much as I agree with the rest of what you have been posting, this I will have to disagree with. Why wouldn't the guys be attention whores and the women be poofs in denial? That's not the point I'm disagreeing with however.

I don't want to write another long post, so if anyone wants to know, just ask, and perhaps I'll respond.

It's not a strawman. It's a difference between your interpretation and mine of her post. Seriusly, if you use terms like strawman enough in the wrong situation, they lose their impact. Use the term correctly or not at all.

Your interpretation has no bearing. Her intent is the point and you have to reach so far you'll pull your arm out of the socket to get yours. Look at the post. You know what she meant. You argued as if she said something different than she said. Hmmmm... what's that called? Oh, a strawman. Use the term correctly or not all.

Or perhaps deep-seated fears that their standards of "normal" aren't entirely healthy to begin with?

Despite what she may or may not believe, this is something she admits is an assumption about how they feel about their standards of normal. It does not make any value judgement about their standards of "normal" other than the valuation that the people she is talking about may assign. You are mixing what she may or may not believe into her guess about why they react the way they do.

She didn't say it. She didn't imply it. She wasn't arguing it. You argued as if she did and was, thus a strawman. You've been doing it throughout the thread and let's face it, it's not accidental. You're having a hard time dealing with what people do say so you have to make it into something easier to dispute. It's not like you're the first we've seen do it.

You're right. What she was talking about was traditional gender based roles. Whether my interpretation was correct or not, I believed she was saying that it was inherently unhealthy for men and women to conform to the roles western society assigns us. That women being nurturers and men being breadwinners is somehow an unhealthy way to divide the responsibilities in a relationship.
Whether you were interpreting what she believes, it is not what she said. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of reading comprehension. Read what's there. Not what's easiest to argue against.

And, incidentally, given the line of points she was replying to, I suspect she was actually talking about sexuality not gender identity. But that doesn't change your strawman.

I'm sorry where did you get that 90% number?

I think I read it in a magazine, and have heard it as well, although I can't really give any documentation. sorry.

Which magazine? I'd love to know exactly which one is spreading such blatant fundie propaganda.

I'm pretty sure it is possible to convert. There are many Christians who used to be gay, but who changed after they became Christians.

No dear, they're still gay, if they ever were. They might be repressing it because someone told them it was "teh evil", but you don't turn your sexuality on and off that way.

Related topic: it seems that there are environmental causes for homosexuality, such as the fact that 90% of gay people were sexually abused,

Seriously, if you're just going to make outrageous "facts" up. Did you know that 90% of all heterosexuals were sexually abused?

Seriously, cite your source, or refrain from using statistics with no basis in fact.

Also, many feminists are gay, so there is a another huge environmental factor (disliking men) that is not genetic that causes them to be favorably disposed toward homosexuality. There are other examples too.

There are no more feminist lesbians than there are feminist straight women, and there is nothing at all about feminism that involves disliking men.

You really are just making things up, aren't you?

I think I read it in a magazine, and have heard it as well, although I can't really give any documentation. sorry.

Was it a Jack Chick tract?

I think I read it in a magazine, and have heard it as well, although I can't really give any documentation. sorry.
Yeah, I'd like to see that magazine too, because I can't wait to yell at all of the researchers that somehow managed to overlook something so common among gay people as to need further research. Either that, or it's a made-up number. I'm sure you didn't make it up on purpose, but there is no way that is anywhere close to the real number of gay individuals who were molested. It sounds more like a sideways attempt to associate homosexuality with an illness, like PTSD or something.

Everything I can find about such numbers is where they are talking about people who are sexually confused (unsure of their sexuality). Yes, a lot of sexual confusion is caused by being molested, but sexual confusion and homosexuality is not equal as the "let's convert 'em" websites try to claim.

Sexual abuse is a known and accepted cause of unhealthy sexual behavior. The fact that it is not a cause of homosexuality is actually quite a bit of evidence that being a homosexual (not just having homosexual sex) is not just some kind of rebellion like so many of the religious right try to claim

Possibly referring to a highly discredited report by a fellow named Paul Cameron:


http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html

Religious nutjob site claiming there's no verified cause:

http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm


Wikipedia's site on the subject of sexual abuse and it's effects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Effects_of_sexual_abuse_on_minors



There are a myriad of papers on the subject, though I've yet to find that 90% number.

I think I read it in a magazine, and have heard it as well, although I can't really give any documentation. sorry.

Ah. Nothing quite so American as the willingness to deny fundamental human rights on the basis of things one "think[s ]" one "read [] in a magazine, and ha[s] heard [] as well." Just makes my heart swell with pride.

Religious nutjob site claiming there's no verified cause:

http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm

I always love the "logic" these people use. "Well, the APA says there's no absolutely confirmed cause. This definitely positively means it must be a choice."

LOL

Your interpretation has no bearing. Her intent is the point and you have to reach so far you'll pull your arm out of the socket to get yours. Look at the post. You know what she meant. You argued as if she said something different than she said. Hmmmm... what's that called? Oh, a strawman. Use the term correctly or not all.

If I knew what she was saying, I wouldn't have put my first post in response to her in the form of questions.

Despite what she may or may not believe, this is something she admits is an assumption about how they feel about their standards of normal. It does not make any value judgement about their standards of "normal" other than the valuation that the people she is talking about may assign. You are mixing what she may or may not believe into her guess about why they react the way they do.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with the idea that being forced to fit gender roles is a bad thing. My fundamental point was forcing people out of their "traditional" roles is no better than forcing them into them.

She didn't say it. She didn't imply it. She wasn't arguing it. You argued as if she did and was, thus a strawman. You've been doing it throughout the thread and let's face it, it's not accidental. You're having a hard time dealing with what people do say so you have to make it into something easier to dispute. It's not like you're the first we've seen do it.


Whether you were interpreting what she believes, it is not what she said. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of reading comprehension. Read what's there. Not what's easiest to argue against.

Which is it? Am I too stupid to figure out what was there, or am I deliberately mischaracterising her post? You can't have it both ways.

I honestly don't know why I bother. This entire conversation is a tangent with no value to the core of the discussion anyway.

And, incidentally, given the line of points she was replying to, I suspect she was actually talking about sexuality not gender identity. But that doesn't change your strawman.
She had a pretty big rant on heteronormativity, which largely focuses on gender identity and the unhealthy effects of the gender identities we are assigned in our society. It's post 1021 of this thread. I still think she was on the same subject as that post with regards to the supposed health of the sexual views of homophobes.

Why must we fight amongst ourselves when we are basicly on the same side?

Which is it? Am I too stupid to figure out what was there, or am I deliberately mischaracterising her post? You can't have it both ways.

I don't want it both ways. I think you do it on purpose and I'm pointing it out because as you've just noted it ruins discussion. I've been reading this thread since the beginning but the entire middle where you were arguing with Dem I was trying to resist posting. Deliberately mischaracterizing posts so you can get your post out may work in emotional and irrational arguments but here it's obvious and makes you far less credible. None of what you said can be found in Bottle's post. If it's necessary, I'll gladly find a dozen more examples throughout the thread. Or you could just drop it and try to be more careful about responding to what a post says and not what you want to talk about.

Why must we fight amongst ourselves when we are basicly on the same side?
Because I think you have more than this and I'm arrogant enough to point that out when I get annoyed. There. Try and argue with that.

And, well, there's also the fact that I've seen you attack people 'basically on the same side' throughout the thread for things they DID NOT say.

She didn't actually say that, Mr. Strawman. She said they seem to fear that it is unhealthy. I doubt she has ever suggested that a heterosexual entering a heterosexual relationship is inherently less healthy than a homosexual entering a homosexual relationship.
And you would be correct. As my post made quite clear, the problem with heteronormativity is the assumption that there can be only one "normal" form of human sexuality. It would be just as bizarre to claim that all humans must be gay as it is to claim that all humans must be straight.

EDIT: I think the quote that was giving people problems was when I said, "Or perhaps deep-seated fears that their standards of "normal" aren't entirely healthy to begin with?"

Remember, this is not about heteroSEXUALITY, it is about heteroNORMATIVITY. My post was about some of the hurtful and unhealthy notions that exist within the scope of heteronormativity, such as the negative portrayals of the opposite gender. It is pretty obviously unhealthy to teach boys that girls are weak and stupid and no fun, but then insist that boys form life-long partnerships with women and expect those partnerships to be happy and fulfilling. It is pretty obviously unhealthy to teach girls that all men are violent beasts who only want to get in your pants, but then force those girls to chain their lives to the very men who you insist are not ever going to love or respect anything other than their sex organs.

THOSE are the unhealthy notions I was referring to, not the notion of heterosexuality itself.

I'm sorry where did you get that 90% number?
Out of the same book that teaches us that gays are more likely to be molesters, I'm sure. *eye roll*

And you would be correct. As my post made quite clear, the problem with heteronormativity is the assumption that there can be only one "normal" form of human sexuality. It would be just as bizarre to claim that all humans must be gay as it is to claim that all humans must be straight.

EDIT: I think the quote that was giving people problems was when I said, "Or perhaps deep-seated fears that their standards of "normal" aren't entirely healthy to begin with?"

Remember, this is not about heteroSEXUALITY, it is about heteroNORMATIVITY. My post was about some of the hurtful and unhealthy notions that exist within the scope of heteronormativity, such as the negative portrayals of the opposite gender. It is pretty obviously unhealthy to teach boys that girls are weak and stupid and no fun, but then insist that boys form life-long partnerships with women and expect those partnerships to be happy and fulfilling. It is pretty obviously unhealthy to teach girls that all men are violent beasts who only want to get in your pants, but then force those girls to chain their lives to the very men who you insist are not ever going to love or respect anything other than their sex organs.

THOSE are the unhealthy notions I was referring to, not the notion of heterosexuality itself.

I found your post to be quite clear, but then I wasn't trying to find something to argue about.

I'm pretty sure it is possible to convert. There are many Christians who used to be gay, but who changed after they became Christians.

If by convert you mean pretend to be straight because you honestly think God is going to send you to hell for how he made you, yeah, they have. I am quite positive they are leading unhappy lives on the inside.

My personal view is that medical strategies won't work; sin is a spiritual thing and so they can only change with the help of God. Medical associations are dominated by materialists who would be unwilling to consider this option.

uhm...ok...

Related topic: it seems that there are environmental causes for homosexuality, such as the fact that 90% of gay people were sexually abused,

Oh come on now you are just making shit up. Every homosexual I know was never abused as a child.

which could cause resentment and mess with who you are attracted to.

Let me tell you a story.

There once was a boy. Not long after he was born, his life took a nose dive. His circumcision was botched, and they had to cut the whole thing off.

Back then (I think this was late 70's early 80's maybe? someone feel free to correct), the doctor thought "if you raise him like a girl, it will think it's a female." They did a complete sex change, and made the child a female.

Unfortunately, the child went through alot of hardships. Thinkning he was female, (s)he obviously thought (s)he was a lesbian because (s)he was attracted to women. (S)he did not want to live the life (s)he was living, because (s)he knew something was off. No matter how you raise a child, the brain and instinct override nurture.

(S)he was later told that (s)he should have been a male. They gave him/her another sex change back to a male.

He killed himself not too long ago.

Boy's Don't Cry is the story of this person. It probably contains little accuracy of what actually happened (I have never seen it) but nonetheless its what happened.

Instinct, especially when it comes to sexuality, cannot be controlled. If you are straight, youre straight. If youre gay, youre gay. There is no undoing it.

Also, many feminists are gay,

Again, youre making shit up.

so there is a another huge environmental factor (disliking men) that is not genetic that causes them to be favorably disposed toward homosexuality. There are other examples too.

Well try making examples that, you know, can be supported.

Also, i don't think that being attracted to someone of the same sex is wrong (just like it is not wrong for me to be attracted to women of the oppisite sex that i am not married to); it is only wrong if I act out my desires by lusting or having gay sex.

So then its wrong to act out your lust and desires to have straight sex as well.

I think we should love homosexuals and try to understand them as they struggle with something that I could not imagine struggling with, and which many of them do not want to struggle with. I don't think being gay sends you to hell any more than other sins do.

They aren't struggling. They don't need to change. They are who they are and noone can help it.

"Oh come on now you are just making shit up. Every homosexual I know was never abused as a child."

The only abuse I heard of from gay friends was from their parents, for them being gay. Imagine that.

Oh come on now you are just making shit up. Every homosexual I know was never abused as a child.
As wellmeaning as you are and even if i support your views, anecdotal evidence is no good, unless you try to shatter absolutes or introduce a new angle into the discussion. ;)

As wellmeaning as you are and even if i support your views, anecdotal evidence is no good, unless you try to shatter absolutes or introduce a new angle into the discussion. ;)

Anecdotal evidence is a pretty good indicator when the point you are replying to is has no evidence at all, for one thing, and for another, using an absurd percentage like 90%.

For example, if 90% of homosexuals were sexually abused as a child and I know 10 homosexuals very well and none have a history of sexual abuse, while this evidence may not entirely negate the point, it certainly evidences a likelihood that it is spurious.

As wellmeaning as you are and even if i support your views, anecdotal evidence is no good, unless you try to shatter absolutes or introduce a new angle into the discussion. ;)

While there are different theories about how the sexual orientation develops, experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation. It is unlikely that someone can make another person a homosexual or heterosexual. Sexual orientation is a complex issue and there is no single answer or theory that explains why someone identifies himself as homosexual, heterosexual, or bi-sexual. Whether perpetrated by older males or females, boys' or girls' premature, sexual experiences are damaging in many ways, including confusion about one's sexual identity and orientation. Many boys who have been abused by males erroneously believe that something about them sexually attracts males, and that this may mean they are homosexual or effeminate. Again, not true. Pedophiles who are attracted to boys will admit that the lack of body hair and adult sexual features turns them on. The pedophile's inability to develop and maintain a healthy adult sexual relationship is the problem-not the physical features of a sexually immature boy.

As wellmeaning as you are and even if i support your views, anecdotal evidence is no good, unless you try to shatter absolutes or introduce a new angle into the discussion. ;)
Even anecdotal evidence is better then no evidence , which is what the quoted person was replying to

I found your post to be quite clear, but then I wasn't trying to find something to argue about.
Yeah, I've noticed that people who are determined to disagree with me will pretty much always manage to "misunderstand" what I have written.

In particular, I was criticising Bottle's judgement (which was implicit rather than explicit) that the social structures the modern western world has adhered to for generations were inherently unhealthy. One way of arranging things is not better or worse than another, so long as all parties enter into the arrangement willingly.
This is worth bringing up again (in my oh-so-humble opinion), because it's a point that a lot of people seem to gloss over:

The reason that I feel heteronormativity is unhealthy has nothing to do with my feelings on heterosexuality or heterosexual relationships. I am currently in a heterosexual relationship, one which I find very fulfilling and enjoyable, and I wouldn't trade my partner for anything.

The problem with heteronormativity is that it strips away choice. It renders the judgment that all individuals must fit themselves to a certain pattern, regardless of their own wants, needs, dreams, goals, and personalities. It expects that all humans will want the same things out of life, and it punishes those who don't conform.

So why does this bug me so much? Because heteronormativity is just so freaking BOSSY! God, mind your own freaking business, people! :)

The weird part is that the koran, the torah and in some ways the bible describe homosexuality as sex/desire, their is no love described, it doesn't even say that two men or two women cannot love each other in this kind of way, and sex before marriage is immoral, so if homosexual people got married in holy matrimony and then had sex for the first time, would they still be considered sinners?

And the whole no to oral or anal sex is a load of shit!
EVERYBODY has done either (most likely oral) so if you say you havent, everyone knows your full of shit!

Pardon my intrusion

I would like to know why you people hate/disslike gay people? And don't come dragging with "It's not natural" crap cause it is natural. Animals of all(most all) spescies (Can't spell it) can be gay and the "Holy" Bible is just a bloody book. I want to know why YOU, you mind, your excellent little gray brain don't like gay people.

This is worth bringing up again (in my oh-so-humble opinion), because it's a point that a lot of people seem to gloss over:

The reason that I feel heteronormativity is unhealthy has nothing to do with my feelings on heterosexuality or heterosexual relationships. I am currently in a heterosexual relationship, one which I find very fulfilling and enjoyable, and I wouldn't trade my partner for anything.

The problem with heteronormativity is that it strips away choice. It renders the judgment that all individuals must fit themselves to a certain pattern, regardless of their own wants, needs, dreams, goals, and personalities. It expects that all humans will want the same things out of life, and it punishes those who don't conform.

So why does this bug me so much? Because heteronormativity is just so freaking BOSSY! God, mind your own freaking business, people! :)

Quite. As a young man (well, 25 now), i have on several occations been told I should be "chasing the chicks". Nevermind what I prefer to do, that's what I'm supposed to do it seems.
Apparently, I am to spend all my waking hours attempting to impregnate as many women as possible, and failure to do so will make me a filthy faggot.

Quite. As a young man (well, 25 now), i have on several occations been told I should be "chasing the chicks". Nevermind what I prefer to do, that's what I'm supposed to do it seems.
Apparently, I am to spend all my waking hours attempting to impregnate as many women as possible, and failure to do so will make me a filthy faggot.
Also, as a male, you can never EVER learn how to dress yourself, do your own laundry, cook your own food, or clean up after yourself. Any trace of these abilities will mark you as a faggot.

You also can never, ever, be nurturing with your children. Females are biologically designed to like children and know how to care for them, while males are horrible brutes who will never be able to care for their own young. The up side of this is that you are genetically incapable of changing diapers (yay!). The down side is that you can never be gentle and loving and tender with your kids.

Hell, you really aren't even supposed to want to have children. Yes, you're supposed to want to have strong male heirs to carry on your manly line, but you're not supposed to LIKE them. Liking your children will make them into faggots and feminists and all sort of icky things.

So yeah, real men are incompetant and hate children. Faggots are self-sufficient and nurturing. This is why the foundation of healthy families rests with placing real heterosexual men in charge. I hope you're writing this down.

Please rephrase the child loving bit.

Please rephrase the child loving bit.
Um, love and sex are different things.

Ooops, I forgot, no they aren't. In this world, sex = love = sex, sex and more sex.

My bad.

How about, "Family-minded." Is that safe and antiseptic enough? "Platonically nurturing toward children in a way that doesn't involve anything remotely sexual in any way shape or form"?

Precisely my point, straight men are incapable of love, just sex.

They'll be confused!

Um, love and sex are different things.

Ooops, I forgot, no they aren't. In this world, sex = love = sex, sex and more sex.

My bad.

How about, "Family-minded." Is that safe and antiseptic enough? "Platonically nurturing toward children in a way that doesn't involve anything remotely sexual in any way shape or form"?

Hey, dunno about everyone else, but marriage is just a fancy ceremony and some legal rights. You love a person? Sex is the ultimate expression of "oneness and compassion", not signing over half of your property to that special someone.

But back on the -original- topic... yeah, Homosexuality is not a disease, it's obviously something different in the brain than heterosexuals. It's biochemical if anything, but not a disease. It doesn't harm the homosexual or end his life earlier than a heterosexual with "normal" brain chemistry. Those of more religious views will just have to learn to cope and keep their opinions on morality to themselves, because gays, lesbians, and bisexuals will eventually be just as average as inter-racial couples (Which was -last- centuries "sinful act"). You may not think it's right, but it's going to be societal norms eventually, and there's no harm that can come of allowing them to act out their natural attractions. If -anything- the -only- viable arguement against homosexuality is from an evolutionary stand point; In that homosexuals cannot properly reproduce on their own. But with adoption and artificial insemination, that can pretty much be muted. So yeah, get used to Wilma and Grace! :fluffle:

Oh, and if incase this has any bearing. I'm an Atheist, and a heterosexual male, in the United States Navy and going to major in Sociology. ;)

Hey, dunno about everyone else, but marriage is just a fancy ceremony and some legal rights. You love a person? Sex is the ultimate expression of "oneness and compassion", not signing over half of your property to that special someone.

I disagree with you there. I don't think either marriage OR sex is the ultimate expression of love. Marriage is a way to express a desire for commitment, though it also can be used for purely pragmatic purposes, or even entered into for profoundly un-loving reasons. Sex can be an expression of love, but it most certainly is not always the best way to express your love for a person.

I am crazy about my partner, and we sure do love to shag, but there is no orgasm in the world that could sum up how I feel about him. There is no sex act in the world that could express all the things I feel about him. Our sexual interactions are one of the many ways we share love, but it would be a pretty lame relationship if sex was the best we could come up with.

Biology is our bitch.

Also, as a male, you can never EVER learn how to dress yourself, do your own laundry, cook your own food, or clean up after yourself. Any trace of these abilities will mark you as a faggot.

Actually, I'm not sure this really holds anymore. There are still some, but I think that aspect of heteronormativity has changed considerably (except maybe the clothing thing). In my family it was expected that all children share in the housework and the cooking (while only the boys had to take out the trash and mow the lawn, how is that fair). All of my friends were taught to cook by their mothers and I have dated only one or two women who actually knew how to cook. In the modern generation, I don't think you can include cooking and cleaning on that list for the general public. There are still those that look at it that way, but I think that brand of heteronormativity is going the way of the dodo.

Now, my uncle used to call me gay (my gay uncle, mind you) when I put gel in my hair, but that's seperate from cooking and cleaning.

You also can never, ever, be nurturing with your children. Females are biologically designed to like children and know how to care for them, while males are horrible brutes who will never be able to care for their own young. The up side of this is that you are genetically incapable of changing diapers (yay!). The down side is that you can never be gentle and loving and tender with your kids.

Hell, you really aren't even supposed to want to have children. Yes, you're supposed to want to have strong male heirs to carry on your manly line, but you're not supposed to LIKE them. Liking your children will make them into faggots and feminists and all sort of icky things.

So yeah, real men are incompetant and hate children. Faggots are self-sufficient and nurturing. This is why the foundation of healthy families rests with placing real heterosexual men in charge. I hope you're writing this down.

The rest of this I agree is still the way people generally look at men.

On television, they often show the mother caring for the children primarily and, generally, working as well. The father is often portrayed as a lovable buffoon who every once in a while happens upon a solution to his children's problems and does little to nothing to help around the house.

Actually, I'm not sure this really holds anymore. There are still some, but I think that aspect of heteronormativity has changed considerably (except maybe the clothing thing). In my family it was expected that all children share in the housework and the cooking (while only the boys had to take out the trash and mow the lawn, how is that fair). All of my friends were taught to cook by their mothers and I have dated only one or two women who actually knew how to cook. In the modern generation, I don't think you can include cooking and cleaning on that list for the general public. There are still those that look at it that way, but I think that brand of heteronormativity is going the way of the dodo.

I dunno, I think it's dying out pretty slowly.

One odd thing I've noticed is that it is becoming increasingly okay for a man to know how to cook...as long as he is cooking for himself, for friends, or for a woman he is courting. But once he is in a relationship with a woman, he is supposed to have her do the cooking, or else he is assumed to be "pussy whipped."

This tends to apply to cleaning, as well; for a male to be able to wash his shorts is starting to become ok, as long as he is living alone. But if he is living with a woman, and if he is the one who does the laundry, then once again it is concluded that he is "whipped" or a "faggot."

I guess the rule must be that real heterosexual men don't like women, and therefore don't ever want to do nice things to help out if women are around?

I dunno, I don't understand these rules.

I grew up in a family where Dad cooked as often as Mom. I grew up hearing that EVERYBODY in the family pitches in with chores. I grew up with the notion that a real man is pretty much the same as a real woman: somebody who cleans up their own messes, takes responsibility for their own jobs, and doesn't whimper when they're asked to do their share for the family. This has left me feeling like something of an alien around many of my fellow Americans. :)


Now, my uncle used to call me gay (my gay uncle, mind you) when I put gel in my hair, but that's seperate from cooking and cleaning.

It ties in to them, however. Men who spend time selecting flattering garments or styling their hair are perceived as less masculine by many people. The backlash against "metrosexuals" has intensified this sort of thing in recent years.

Hell, I've heard men getting picked on for using shampoo that has a fragrance!


The rest of this I agree is still the way people generally look at men.

On television, they often show the mother caring for the children primarily and, generally, working as well. The father is often portrayed as a lovable buffoon who every once in a while happens upon a solution to his children's problems and does little to nothing to help around the house.
I freaking HATE that standard. The Simpsons used to be all about picking fun at it, but in later seasons they've flipped over and become yet another sitcom that enforces the idea of an ugly, bumbling, stupid husband who somehow keeps a hot, talented, smart wife. Gag.

I don't understand that, why would a hot woman stay with a buffoon? Are they trying to tell the women of America that they can't do any better than that even if they are attractive intelligent and talented?

I don't understand that, why would a hot woman stay with a buffoon? Are they trying to tell the women of America that they can't do any better than that even if they are attractive intelligent and talented?

I think, as far as cartoons like the Simpsons and Family Guy goes, it's meant purely for the comic effect. But it's also to show that a man like that is equally capable of courting a gorgeous woman as the dumbass who body-builds or the not-so-attractive, yet intelligent and successful man. It's also pretty much given women tend to go easier on physical appearances then men do. Which may or may not be true, I think it is though, I know -my- standards are high. And even when that high standard keeps me single, I adhere to it, because I refuse to lower myself to the "unattractive, unintelligent" female, regardless of whether or not she's good at heart. Call me shallow, but I just believe in a certain standard. Yell at me all you want for it, but I'm still single, that should be punishment enough... *sigh* :headbang:

I could buy the comedic effect thing if it was funny. Look at King of Queens, there's no way a slob like him would keep her around. Not a chance.

Maybe it's supposed to be a love conquers all thing, but if that's the case why is it never a really hot guy with a fugly woman?

I dunno, I think it's dying out pretty slowly.

One odd thing I've noticed is that it is becoming increasingly okay for a man to know how to cook...as long as he is cooking for himself, for friends, or for a woman he is courting. But once he is in a relationship with a woman, he is supposed to have her do the cooking, or else he is assumed to be "pussy whipped."

This tends to apply to cleaning, as well; for a male to be able to wash his shorts is starting to become ok, as long as he is living alone. But if he is living with a woman, and if he is the one who does the laundry, then once again it is concluded that he is "whipped" or a "faggot."

I guess the rule must be that real heterosexual men don't like women, and therefore don't ever want to do nice things to help out if women are around?

I dunno, I don't understand these rules.

I grew up in a family where Dad cooked as often as Mom. I grew up hearing that EVERYBODY in the family pitches in with chores. I grew up with the notion that a real man is pretty much the same as a real woman: somebody who cleans up their own messes, takes responsibility for their own jobs, and doesn't whimper when they're asked to do their share for the family. This has left me feeling like something of an alien around many of my fellow Americans. :)


It ties in to them, however. Men who spend time selecting flattering garments or styling their hair are perceived as less masculine by many people. The backlash against "metrosexuals" has intensified this sort of thing in recent years.

Hell, I've heard men getting picked on for using shampoo that has a fragrance!


I freaking HATE that standard. The Simpsons used to be all about picking fun at it, but in later seasons they've flipped over and become yet another sitcom that enforces the idea of an ugly, bumbling, stupid husband who somehow keeps a hot, talented, smart wife. Gag.

If my family and your family both taught such things, perhaps you're just being more sensitive to the people who are taught otherwise. I do think the cleaning and cooking thing is primarily no longer considered women's work. Like I said, most women I know actually don't know how to cook. I work with engineers, maintenance workers and scientists, mostly men and pretty 'traditional'. You know with the short-sleeved button-up shirt and the tie that combined cost $25 with a pair of wool pants that don't fit right and shoes that one buys at the same place they buy groceries. We regularly have cooking contests at work. The men trade recipes all the time. It's common for the guys to make lunches for their wives. Again, I think this is one area where those of us who care should be very proud.

As to the rest of it, I agree. It's ridiculous. The amusing part is that the claim is that caring about fashion is somehow the 'icky gays' getting to our men, but didn't our founding fathers wear wigs and make-up?

On the other hand folks expect all gay guys to be fashionable and great cooks.

I can cook, I don't much like to, but I can. I don't give a rat's ass about fashion, if it's not horrifyingly ugly and fits, I'll wear it. Shoes, been wearing the same shoes since I was 16 (near 10 years now), I can do that because I don't wear shoes unless I'm driving or at work.

The image of the gym-queen fashion model is tiresome.

I could buy the comedic effect thing if it was funny. Look at King of Queens, there's no way a slob like him would keep her around. Not a chance.

Maybe it's supposed to be a love conquers all thing, but if that's the case why is it never a really hot guy with a fugly woman?

KoQ is a horrible example because she's a bit of a buffoon herself and total bitch. He's a much nicer person than she is.

Now, a really good example is According to Jim where she is super hot and he's balding and fat. She's smart. He's stupid. She's kind. He's a bastard. She's honest. He's a liar. Etc.

Even on shows like Roseanne, she works and is almost always the one seen cooking and cleaning and caring for the children.

I could buy the comedic effect thing if it was funny. Look at King of Queens, there's no way a slob like him would keep her around. Not a chance.

Maybe it's supposed to be a love conquers all thing, but if that's the case why is it never a really hot guy with a fugly woman?

Cause that would be -too- comedic, even for TV. :P And as I mentioned, men have higher standards for physical appearance than females, why do you think women are more obsessed with how they look than the majority of men? For their own health? ;)

Cause that would be -too- comedic, even for TV. :P And as I mentioned, men have higher standards for physical appearance than females, why do you think women are more obsessed with how they look than the majority of men? For their own health? ;)

I think other women have just as much of an effect on this as men do. Back when the majority of men knew nothing about fashion why did women care about what label they were wearing? Because women care about what other women think. I think as much or moreso than what men think.

If my family and your family both taught such things, perhaps you're just being more sensitive to the people who are taught otherwise. I do think the cleaning and cooking thing is primarily no longer considered women's work.

Sadly, the numbers do not support this belief. Women still do approximately 75% of housework in heterosexual pairings, on average. Look at commercials, as well: tally up the number of commercials for cleaning products that center on women using the products, then see how many feature men. You will also note that the men are almost always portrayed as not being able to use these products, or only being able to use "idiot-proof" products.

Believe me, I wish it were otherwise! And I certainly think things have improved a great deal over the last generation. I just think we have a very long way to go yet.


Like I said, most women I know actually don't know how to cook.

Most PEOPLE I know don't know how to cook. However, females are expected to cook anyway. This often has very unpleasent consequences (yes, I am looking at you, Aunt Helen).


As to the rest of it, I agree. It's ridiculous. The amusing part is that the claim is that caring about fashion is somehow the 'icky gays' getting to our men, but didn't our founding fathers wear wigs and make-up?
Yup. I've always wondered why the traditionalists aren't pushing for us to put our manly men back in tights, the way they were in the good old days.

I think other women have just as much of an effect on this as men do. Back when the majority of men knew nothing about fashion why did women care about what label they were wearing? Because women care about what other women think. I think as much or moreso than what men think.
It's really kind of both (for most women). The reason other women's opinions matter is because they are competition for men. Women compete with each other to see who can best compete for men.

And, honestly, 90% of women's fashion has absolutely NOTHING to do with what women like or want. Just look at their shoes, for god's sake. Most of the people designing for women are men, and GAY men at that. Yes, the world really is that silly :).

Cause that would be -too- comedic, even for TV. :P And as I mentioned, men have higher standards for physical appearance than females, why do you think women are more obsessed with how they look than the majority of men? For their own health? ;)
I don't think men have higher standards, it's just that they are told they deserve a hot woman no matter what. No matter how ugly, or rude, or imcompetant they are, they are given the message that they deserve a hot woman.

Women, on the other hand, are taught that if they aren't beautiful then they don't deserve any man at all. You can see why the priorities might end up a bit skewed.

Sadly, the numbers do not support this belief. Women still do approximately 75% of housework in heterosexual pairings, on average. Look at commercials, as well: tally up the number of commercials for cleaning products that center on women using the products, then see how many feature men. You will also note that the men are almost always portrayed as not being able to use these products, or only being able to use "idiot-proof" products.

Believe me, I wish it were otherwise! And I certainly think things have improved a great deal over the last generation. I just think we have a very long way to go yet.


Most PEOPLE I know don't know how to cook. However, females are expected to cook anyway. This often has very unpleasent consequences (yes, I am looking at you, Aunt Helen).


Yup. I've always wondered why the traditionalists aren't pushing for us to put our manly men back in tights, the way they were in the good old days.

We all know hollywood is skewed. If you believe hollywood, black people talk a certain way, muggers are always black, etc. Hollywood presents a parody of American life at best.

As far as the 75% number, I'd have to see some evidence because it doesn't match my experience.

EDIT: http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/workfamily/20050520-workfamily.html

This study doesn't say whether they normalized for professional hours worked or anything like that, but it hardly supports your claim.

I don't think men have higher standards, it's just that they are told they deserve a hot woman no matter what. No matter how ugly, or rude, or imcompetant they are, they are given the message that they deserve a hot woman.

Women, on the other hand, are taught that if they aren't beautiful then they don't deserve any man at all. You can see why the priorities might end up a bit skewed.

What really makes me angry are the 'cute' hollywood movies that tell women that if a man is an ass to you that if he just sings a song or shows up with the marching band or something that you should forgive him. My personal 'favorite' is when the guy gets in a car accident and NEVER visits her in the hospital. But he's really sweet when her friend has a baby so she forgives him.

I am religious nut-job! But if somebody loves person of his/her sex, i don't have problem with that, as long as they are keeping their hands from me. Besides, it is good to have as many gay in this world as possible cos then there are more opportunities for us , straight guys, to find a gal - what can i say except it's law of Supply and Demand!

I disagree. 90% of the persons at my church adopt that view. 9% are heathens so it doesn't really matter what they believe when discussing the Christian view of homosexuality. 1% agree with me: 8 persons. This breakdown is reflected across churches in the US with few exceptions according to various surveys. Sorry I don't have any at my finger tips.
90% of people in your church think that there should be concentration camps to kill off homosexuals?

You go to a fundamentalist church. It doesn't represent most Christians.

Oh BTW..forgot to say this...Its not a disease or psychological disorder. Just a lifestyle.
Define lifestyle? I don't think that you have to be totally down with the flamboyant excesses of the "gay scene" to be gay.

Alright I just wanna say some stuff here. Out of curiosity, what culture are you all in where its unmannly to cook for a woman? That really does seem incredably odd. And back to the main subject, seriously we're all a little gay, I can't imagine how anyone could reasonably think anything else. I got my own theories as to why the hardcore religious types are so against homosexuality. But then (and I know someones gonna be offended by this, and i'm sorry to do so, but consider this anyways) I really do believe most of the modern religions are perversions of there base ideals and believes anyways, and considering for the most part those institutions are getting phased out. In most places I don't see what the big deal with there believes are (except america i suppose, but then its mostly a political tool there so its not really "religion" anymore anyways), Its there believes and if there actualy forcing them on the political scene so badly, why do you let them do so when its so strongly against the spirit of democracy?

I am religious nut-job! But if somebody loves person of his/her sex, i don't have problem with that, as long as they are keeping their hands from me. Besides, it is good to have as many gay in this world as possible cos then there are more opportunities for us , straight guys, to find a gal - what can i say except it's law of Supply and Demand!

I'm sure keeping their hands off you will be difficult. I just hope they have the willpower to do so.

Remember, these are people who teach their sons that women are naturally inferior to men, pretty much making it impossible for their sons to ever really love or cherish a woman in any meaningful way. These are people who teach their daughters that all men are beasts, and that men are just barely restrained by society/God/laws from abusing and raping women (which all men want to do, in their opinion). Only need, unhappy need, keeps heterosexual unions together.

Without need, why would women submit to the horrors of beastial men? Why would men condescend to spend time around women at all?

Hey what have you been reading? I want some.

Why do so many Christians, "Christians," and other persons attack homosexuals so much?

I know of three view points on homosexuality: total sinfullness, problem which leads to sin, and no sin.

Total sinfullness is obvious: it is a sin to be gay.
No sin is also obvious: it is in no way a sin to be gay.

But what about the view that homosexuality being a problem which leads to sin? So few people have considered this possibility, especially in Christian circles. This belief is that homosexuals have a problem the same way some people have clinical depression. It is developed, but there are possibly some genetic factors that make it possible for someone to have a greater risk of being gay. Acting on the desires of homosexuality is sinful the same way one who has depression sins when s/he commits suicide. The problem lead to sin, but it was not sin in itself.

I find it very frustrating that so many Christians and "Christians" reject this and adopt a "Kill them all!" stance when they claim to be loving individuals. We ought to help homosexuals overcome their problem, not condemn them.

"Love the sinner; hate the sin!"

Any thoughts?

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
-Leviticus 18:22

'Nuff said.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
-Leviticus 18:22

'Nuff said.

Uh-huh. I'd say that's not enough said since you've given no information about the meaning of the passage, the culture of the time, the original language or any of the other information you should know but don't.

Leviticus 20:9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

'Nuff said.

Leviticus 20:10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

'Nuff said.

Are you coing to start putting people to death for dishonoring their parents? Let's pull some other gems of Leviticus.

Leviticus 20:18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

'Nuff said.

Leviticus 29:27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

'Nuff said.

1 Corinthians 11:14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him

"Nuff said.

Oh, wait, those two things contradict each other. Uh-oh. Perhaps quoting passages without explaining them is about as useful as a canteen with a hole in it.

I'm not taking the side of the religious right, I'm merely answering the question, which was why Christians don't like gay people. Sorry if I didn't clarify that.

I'm not taking the side of the religious right, I'm merely answering the question, which was why Christians don't like gay people. Sorry if I didn't clarify that.

Then assign my comment to the people who would actually make that argument.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
-Leviticus 18:22

'Nuff said.
Dude, let me explain something to you:

As somebody who has tried both, allow me to assure you that it is physiologically impossible to "lie with a woman" the way you "lie with a man." I don't know how much you've been taught about the human reproductive organs, but lady parts and gent parts are completely different.

To "lie with a mankind as you would with womankind" would require some seriously twisted shit...I mean, you'd have to pretty much perform gender-reassignment surgery right there in the bed, and I think that qualifies as "abomination."

What really makes me angry are the 'cute' hollywood movies that tell women that if a man is an ass to you that if he just sings a song or shows up with the marching band or something that you should forgive him. My personal 'favorite' is when the guy gets in a car accident and NEVER visits her in the hospital. But he's really sweet when her friend has a baby so she forgives him.
Oh man, I HATE THOSE MOVIES.

Almost as much as I hate the movies where the spirited, willful, independent female learns that she must be helpless and vulnerable and soft in order to get a man, and isn't it beautiful when she finally learns how much she NEEDS him? Barf.

Or how about the script where the male lead spends the entire movie whimpering about how he doesn't understand women, and his oh-so-helpful frat buddy educates him on the Magical Manly List Of Rules For Getting Women. This list is pretty much a bunch of instructions on how to completely avoid every actually asking the woman what she wants, needs, or likes.

Most of the time, the only people who complain about these movies are women. I don't get that. If I were a guy, I would be fucking insulted by the notion that I'm supposed to want some helpless little damsel who can't take care of herself...how freaking insecure do they think I am? I would be even more insulted by the idea that men are too stupid to talk to other human beings. I would be disgusted by the idea that the ultimate heterosexual male goal is to obtain a life-long partnership with a female who I am utterly uninterested in speaking to, but who can be tricked into putting up with my sexual advances.

Oh man, I HATE THOSE MOVIES.

Almost as much as I hate the movies where the spirited, willful, independent female learns that she must be helpless and vulnerable and soft in order to get a man, and isn't it beautiful when she finally learns how much she NEEDS him? Barf.

Or how about the script where the male lead spends the entire movie whimpering about how he doesn't understand women, and his oh-so-helpful frat buddy educates him on the Magical Manly List Of Rules For Getting Women. This list is pretty much a bunch of instructions on how to completely avoid every actually asking the woman what she wants, needs, or likes.

Most of the time, the only people who complain about these movies are women. I don't get that. If I were a guy, I would be fucking insulted by the notion that I'm supposed to want some helpless little damsel who can't take care of herself...how freaking insecure do they think I am? I would be even more insulted by the idea that men are too stupid to talk to other human beings. I would be disgusted by the idea that the ultimate heterosexual male goal is to obtain a life-long partnership with a female who I am utterly uninterested in speaking to, but who can be tricked into putting up with my sexual advances.

It's amusing that we act like this stuff is sweet and then we complain that none of us have a clue on what makes for a good relationship. And most of the women found the movie I mentioned (Mandy Moore starred in it) to be very cute.

My favorite ones are the movies where a guy tries to get a girl under the advice of his prick of a friend who is telling him to ignore her, etc., and in the end he gets her because he finally stops playing games and talks to her like a human being.

It's amusing that we act like this stuff is sweet and then we complain that none of us have a clue on what makes for a good relationship. And most of the women found the movie I mentioned (Mandy Moore starred in it) to be very cute.

No joke!

I cannot STAND women who go crazy for those movies and then whine about how they can never get into a good relationship. If you idolize warped and unhealthy relationships, it's pretty unlikely that you're ever going to have any other kind.


My favorite ones are the movies where a guy tries to get a girl under the advice of his prick of a friend who is telling him to ignore her, etc., and in the end he gets her because he finally stops playing games and talks to her like a human being.
Those ones still kind of annoy me, because they all act like it's some kind of life-changing revelation when the guy figures out that talking to a woman might be a good idea. As though males need to go through 120 minutes of stupid hijinks before they figure out that women are people.

No joke!

I cannot STAND women who go crazy for those movies and then whine about how they can never get into a good relationship. If you idolize warped and unhealthy relationships, it's pretty unlikely that you're ever going to have any other kind.


Those ones still kind of annoy me, because they all act like it's some kind of life-changing revelation when the guy figures out that talking to a woman might be a good idea. As though males need to go through 120 minutes of stupid hijinks before they figure out that women are people.

Well, come on, movies often have a tragic hero. What would be fun about watching a movie about a guy who meets a woman and they have a wonderful relationship from the outset with no tragedy, no misunderstanding, nothing bad happens. I mean, it does have to be entertaining. Not to mention, given what most relationships among young people go through, it's fairly realistic, except it's not 120 minutes, more like 10 or 12 years.

Well, come on, movies often have a tragic hero. What would be fun about watching a movie about a guy who meets a woman and they have a wonderful relationship from the outset with no tragedy, no misunderstanding, nothing bad happens.

Of course. Are you implying that tragedy and/or misunderstanding never strike intelligent, interesting people? Wow, it would be a great world if that were true!

There are plenty of complications and difficulties that can arrise in the best of relationships. Hell, look at Shakespeare's versions of the romantic comedy...you have hillarious situations that don't sacrifice the sympathetic nature of the characters.


I mean, it does have to be entertaining.

I don't find anything entertaining about seeing stupid people doing the same stupid things over and over and over. Well, ok, there is something funny about that, but it's not funny ha-ha, it's funny uh-oh.

Personally, I don't feel any connection to the stupid, empty characters in these movies. Who cares if the American Pie kid gets laid? Who cares if some vapid spacecadet of a chick gets her "Prince Charming"? They're just walking stereotypes, and I don't much care about the sexual lives of stereotypes. I am much more entertained by complex, interesting individuals who are faced with novel and challenging situations. It's more entertaining to put interesting people in interesting situations, throw a couple of roller-skating monkeys into the mix, and watch the hijinx ensue.


Not to mention, given what most relationships among young people go through, it's fairly realistic, except it's not 120 minutes, more like 10 or 12 years.
I think you're getting into chicken-and-egg territory, though. What model do kids have for relationships? Well, in every single movie that is targetted at them, they see that men must be idiots who can't talk or behave like adults, and women are dimwitted helpless pixies who cry whenever they don't get their way. Maybe if they were given some alternative model, they would discover that it is possible to NOT be a complete fucktard while dating. :P

Of course. Are you implying that tragedy and/or misunderstanding never strike intelligent, interesting people? Wow, it would be a great world if that were true!

There are plenty of complications and difficulties that can arrise in the best of relationships. Hell, look at Shakespeare's versions of the romantic comedy...you have hillarious situations that don't sacrifice the sympathetic nature of the characters.


I don't find anything entertaining about seeing stupid people doing the same stupid things over and over and over. Well, ok, there is something funny about that, but it's not funny ha-ha, it's funny uh-oh.

Personally, I don't feel any connection to the stupid, empty characters in these movies. Who cares if the American Pie kid gets laid? Who cares if some vapid spacecadet of a chick gets her "Prince Charming"? They're just walking stereotypes, and I don't much care about the sexual lives of stereotypes. I am much more entertained by complex, interesting individuals who are faced with novel and challenging situations. It's more entertaining to put interesting people in interesting situations, throw a couple of roller-skating monkeys into the mix, and watch the hijinx ensue.


I think you're getting into chicken-and-egg territory, though. What model do kids have for relationships? Well, in every single movie that is targetted at them, they see that men must be idiots who can't talk or behave like adults, and women are dimwitted helpless pixies who cry whenever they don't get their way. Maybe if they were given some alternative model, they would discover that it is possible to NOT be a complete fucktard while dating. :P

I don't think relationship problems are a new phenomena. People have been writing about such things since time immemorial. I do think movies affect it, but I also think that it often takes people new to the relationship scene a bit to get their act together.

As to the movie thing, I suspect if you were the average movie-goer, movies would be different. You're not and they aren't. I like more intricate characters as well. Characters you can discuss after the movie, but many of my friends would rather see Waiting or such. You can't change the fact that a lot of people are quite happy to keep things simple.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
-Leviticus 18:22

'Nuff said.

Do you honestly believe that in this entire thread, no-one had posted that before, let along on the entire forum?
Do you really think we never heard this before, and that we would gasp and say 'Oh wow, we never realised! Thank you ever so much for pointing that out! How ever could we have missed that?".

Do you honestly believe that in this entire thread, no-one had posted that before, let along on the entire forum?
Do you really think we never heard this before, and that we would gasp and say 'Oh wow, we never realised! Thank you ever so much for pointing that out! How ever could we have missed that?".
Hey, you need to remember that a lot of homophobes haven't actually figure out any particular justification for their beliefs, and a lot of Christians haven't actually bothered to read the Bible. There are bound to be at least a few of these people who go, "Hey, see, look at that! One Bible passage that proves--PROVES!--that my homophobia is justified!"

I don't think relationship problems are a new phenomena. People have been writing about such things since time immemorial. I do think movies affect it, but I also think that it often takes people new to the relationship scene a bit to get their act together.

Oh, I'm not blaming failed relationships on the movies, don't get me wrong. I just think that kids model a lot of the behavior they see. What bums me out is that we end up with a population of individuals who are all making the exact same fucking mistakes, as opposed to a bunch of individuals who are each making their own unique mistakes. I want the damn variety.


As to the movie thing, I suspect if you were the average movie-goer, movies would be different. You're not and they aren't. I like more intricate characters as well. Characters you can discuss after the movie, but many of my friends would rather see Waiting or such. You can't change the fact that a lot of people are quite happy to keep things simple.
Sure I can. And as soon as my Doomsday Device is complete, I'll prove it to ya. ;)

Uh-huh. I'd say that's not enough said since you've given no information about the meaning of the passage, the culture of the time, the original language or any of the other information you should know but don't.

Leviticus 20:9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

'Nuff said.

Leviticus 20:10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

'Nuff said.

Are you coing to start putting people to death for dishonoring their parents? Let's pull some other gems of Leviticus.

Leviticus 20:18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

'Nuff said.

Leviticus 29:27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

'Nuff said.

1 Corinthians 11:14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him

"Nuff said.

Oh, wait, those two things contradict each other. Uh-oh. Perhaps quoting passages without explaining them is about as useful as a canteen with a hole in it.

You know, I'm not a Biblical scholar or anything, but I'm pretty sure that God spent more page space on the story of Jezebel and the moral of How Bad It Is To Wear Lots Of Makeup. Which probably means that God hates makeup more than gays (or maybe he only hates gays because of all the makeup?). But just go try asking preacher for some lipstick or some ass-sex, and see which one gets you in more trouble.

2007, year of,

Dear elvis,
not much has changed in the way of critical thinking, morals, ethics, bias, raceism, sexism, environmental degradation etc for the past 15,000 years.

Please PLEASE get me off this rock called earth!

Thank you,
First Lord Rafe
-
without this turning to a flame war:
why is the bible, torah, koran, rig veda et. al. still being used?
its 2,000+ years old. a cave painting would be looked at for historical reasons were it that old.

not duplicated, and hailed as the art form for all eternity.

yet some book that old is STILL used for people to base law, morals, ethics, history, philosophy, astronomy, anatomy etc.

what.the.frack?!?!?!

1. if your x-ian god was so loving, why disease, why the massive flooding in SE asia, earth-quakes.
why are kids still-born? why genetic mutations so they will forever be dependent on gov't medical support their entire lives?
2. there are people out there who belive earth is flat because they say it is in the bible; look up "flat earth society".
3. you try being left handed, gay, and pagan for a year.
4. USA, land of the free, is for you, in this homophobic, christian dominated, right-hand only country.

fucking tell me everything is peachy! you can get married in alaska, then move to utah, and the licence will still apply. not i! i have to stay in the state i get "civil" unionized in.

i cant visit my lover in the hospital if his parents forbid it, unlike straight people.

join the u.s. miltary, yer a patriot, and gay...well frack! i can do a job as well as any straight guy! and have!

what the HELL is with people?!?!? is it a choice to be gay, pagan, left-handed?

yes, yes it is. i wanted to be on the verge of full alcoholic, a smoker who cant do a full flight of stairs anymore, and a former cutter of wrists.

pagan, well sh@t, its either that or buddism that doesn't give a damn who you sleep with. and white guy with shaved head doesnt go well in modern times.

they "converted", no, they are so scared from reverse psycology they pee themselves everytime they look at a guy, thinking of their "treatments".

im 25, im lucky if i live till im 30. not because i do high risk hobbies, but becaue i wanted to be left alone to try and do the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing. and im not being left alone.

im not preaching, im pissed. i sound like im whining, but if you made it this far, its a cry for help. not for me. ive got scars, but ive made it. i worry about the same-sex couple who right this second is walking up the adoption-house stairs wanting a kid; who are walking a gautlent of screams, rocks, banners, songs, guns, destroyed car, stalkers.

christians, jewish, muslim, hippies. "all loving" shut.up.and.look.at.your.selves.

go ahead, get stabbed for kissing the one you care about in public. its a "choice".

:headbang: :upyours: :headbang: :upyours: :headbang: :upyours:





:(

11-04-2006

Gravedigging is bad, hmmkay.