Actually, you make a good point. I don't agree with your opinion but you have every right to express it without being labelled. By the same token, so does everyone else on this board. When I saw this thread title, I knew it was going to turn into conservatives versus liberals because it appears we have become so stereotyped on this BBS based on those political affiliations. Every thread ends up in a fight between right and left, Christian and other, liberal and conservative. Enough. Express your opinion and disagree, but stop lumping every person with a conservative or liberal ideology on a particular subject into a larger group of percieved beliefs.
Nice. Several people present thoughtful arguments (not me, okay, but the rest) here and you come back with the usual conservative claptrap: Calling people hypocrites without even bothering to say why, rolling your eyes and whining about being labeled a bigot right after exhibiting bigoted behavior. Might as well have said "Nuh Unh!" If you have any free will at all (and God only likes you if you pick him with your free will), answer any of these arguments from any of these posters. I won't ask you to answer the Dr. Laura email. I know you can't. Keep hating. Jesus loves that.
Jeff - lighten up. The "carpet munching" thing was only meant to inject a little humor... besides, I couldn't think of an acceptable word for it. (OK, fine, cunnilingus, cunnilingus, cunning linguist. ) Technically, the Bible doesn't say anything about female homosexuality... Also, what if I felt an emotional connection not only to my husband, but to someone else too? What if that came packaged with some physical attraction? I'm not going to lie, it does happen. But I don't go and act on it. You can't just act on everything... True *sigh*. As a conservative-leaning Generation X'er (and just about the last one left), I don't speak my mind as often as I should, because it doesn't exactly feel good being at odds with my own peer group... especially since I respect everyone's opinions and thought processes, and never want this stuff to carry over to our personal lives. On the other hand, I can't go against my conscience, unless I want to be just another sellout... maybe it's just that I hate to argue, when I wish everybody could just come together in a big warm fuzzy group hug... sigh...
Jeff, Apologies if I'm coming off harsh. I guess we posted above at the same time. I hadn't read your post before posting mine. Only been on this board a couple days (usually only go to the main board, but it's so dead there lately) and haven't experienced the repeated ideology wars. I'll change my tone if that's what's needed, though I've never found politeness to be a particularly effective weapon against zealotry, hate, racism, homophobia or other bigotries.
Fair enough on the lightening up part. On the rest, you didn't answer my questions. All you said is that you "can't just act on everything." Technically, sure you can. You CAN do whatever you want. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences, but that's not the point. You also pointed out attractions to other or from others while being married and not acting. So! What does this have to do with homosexuality? There are homosexuals in committed, monogamous, long-term realationships who face the same problems and find it within themselves to control their impulses to stray. In fact, City Councilwoman Anise Parker has the longest monogamous relationship of any city council person and it is with another woman! I don't understand how you can ascribe the characteristic of "lack of control" to all gay people because they are gay. I'd still like to know what you'd do if you were absolutely repulsed by the idea of a relationship with a man. What do you do? Do you get married anyway and just grin and bear it? Do you join a convent and hope the feelings for other women go away? I know that most people don't like being defined by stereotypes. One of the most insulting stereotypes for gays has to be that they simply don't have the self-discipline to choose a heterosexual lifestyle. Where in the hell did we come up with that one?
It does seem that way. There are some in the "other" categories (devout Muslims on this board, for instance), but usually it's between: Conservative Christian right-wing non-weed-smoking likes-the-Bush-government pro-life creation/intelligent-design and Liberal [agnostic or "liberal-Christian"] left-wing pot-legalization distrusts-the-current-government pro-choice evolution-only With all the diversity of human opinion and our ability to make our own decisions, I'm surprised so many people come so close to fitting into these neat categories. My husband (who's to the right of me - yes, it's possible) says that it's because there are two basic ways of looking at things, and one's right and one's wrong. Sometimes I think it's between those who want God in charge and those who want humans in charge... but that would open up a can of worms for sure. In college I used to wonder what would happen with everyone eventually dividing up along these two lines of thought, until they became unable to live together anymore... I called it the "Apocalyptic Revolution" theory, and it made me sad because my friends and I would be on opposite sides of it... This, of course, is what you discuss at 3 a.m. instead of going to sleep. (as for other stuff brought up recently, 1. <B>Homophobia</B> is the fear of homosexuals... what if someone doesn't agree with it as a lifestyle, but when they see a homosexual they make friends with them like they would with anyone else, no strings attached? They must not be afraid of that person, then. 2. Everyone wants a piece of <B>Jesus</B> and wants to rationalize that he is on their side somehow... popular guy...
Isabel, God wants humans in charge. It's why we have free will. Without free will any worship would be meaningless. And my bias dictates that that's the distinction between these two types of people. Not everyone fits in a tidy mold. And I have many (well, some) conservative friends, including strict religious conservatives. And they're smart and progressive and caring people and so they have trouble reconciling their conservative beliefs with tough questions like the church's stance on homosexuality. I, on the other hand, have no problem with my liberal-but-becoming-more-mainstream-every-day stance that there is absolutely nothing sinful or immoral about homosexuality (or pot smoking for that matter). But I didn't come to that conclusion after reading that I ought to in a book. I developed it myself, by thinking and talking to people and mostly just from a sense of compassion and brotherhood with my fellow humans. Jesus is a popular guy, yes. He should be. And it should be noted, even if it has a million times on this board, that he WAS a liberal. I think that people of principle on both sides of the aisle respect his teachings, whether they say the magic words about him being a saviour or not. The real question is WWJD? Not what is the letter of the law of the Bible. Because if you're going to blindly follow the Bible as written, there's a letter to Dr. Laura above you're gonna want to think long and hard about. Jesus loved the innocent, yes. But he loved the guilty more than the stone throwers. He was also smart, compassionate and understanding from all accounts. I find it impossible to believe he would have any truck at all with people telling gays and lesbians he wanted them to burn in Hell.
Batman: When I refer to hypocrisy, I am referring to the following: People taking the "moral high ground" and saying that others are "ignorant" and "bigots", and in effect implying that they themselves are open-minded and tolerant. What is hypocritical here is that these alledgedly tolerant people are the ones being intolerant of my freedom of expression. ...and since you liked the first one so much... sigh Oh and by the way -- I'm not alone in my opinion here. Last time I checked, sodomy and homosexual marriages weren't legal in the state of Texas. The silent majority siding with me is *enormous*.
For me, it's not about superior sex or emotional comfort. It's about physical attraction. I knew I was gay when I was 11 but I didn't have my first intimate encounter until I was 22. And despite your (and everyone else) equating "anal intercourse" with male homosexuality, not all of us are interested in that. Believe it or not, I have not participated in this activity and may never do so (which might explain why I am still single!) I have never had sex with a woman and even though I haven't gone "all the way" with a guy, I still consider myself 99.9% gay.
Honestly, I don't see these two sides coming to an agreement anytime soon. Most of my answers to y'all's questions can already be found in my responses on this thread. However, Batman Jones really wants a rebuttal to the <B>Dr. Laura</B> story - which is so easy I hadn't even bothered with it - but here goes. All the Biblical quotes are from Leviticus. That is the Old Testament Law. It was clearly stated in the New Testament that the old Law was no longer to apply; Peter could eat unclean animals, etc. (unless of course he chose to be vegan ). The new relationship between Christ and man eliminated any need for the old laws. However, there are express prohibitions against certain homosexual acts in Romans 1 and several other places in the New Testament. The only one who might have trouble explaining this is Dr. Laura, since she practices Judaism. (though I greatly respect her for following her own conscience, even though it cost her in terms of popularity) Jesus may have been a "liberal" for his time - for example, He treated women and people of other ethnic groups as equals - but would He be a "liberal" now? His teachings were not all warm and fuzzy; there are plenty of "straighten up and fly right" messages mixed among them. One that particularly gets lost these days is that of having respect for God and obedience to Him... look, I didn't make these rules about sexual behavior, but I didn't make myself or the world either. I am not perfect. Anyway, I suggest re-reading what Jesus said... though, of course, the Bible is our record of it. Interesting discussion. Now time for dinner... I have a million things to do and this board can really suck up your time.
Texas Sodomy law goes before the US Supreme Court next week. But they haven't said whether or not they will hear the case. With the 5-4 conservative edge, it wouldn't surprise me if they refused to hear it. Arkansas's supreme court recently struck down their own states sodomy law.
Jorge, Your "silent majority" is shrinking. I'm pretty sure the sodomy law in Texas was struck down last year or so. If not, it will be soon. Used to be the majority here in Texas was for segregation, too. The "silent" majority still might be. Sorry. Can't abide the argument that Texas law should serve as my moral compass. This thing about it being hypocritical to call bigoted remarks bigoted because it's intolerant to your freedom of expression... I very much appreciate freedom of expression. I appreciate the right of the Klan to demonstrate as much as I appreciate your right to judge other people's most intimate decisions as much as I appreciate the right of a US citizen to burn the American flag. And I accept the Klan. But they ARE bigots. And people who excercise their right to freedom of expression by calling homosexuality sinful are bigots, too. I'm not lumping all conservatives in here, because more and more conservatives are in favor of gay rights. That's the trend in all quarters, thankfully. The nice thing about human beings, as they evolve, is that they tend to take increasingly progressive, compassionate, tolerant attitudes toward their common man. But I can understand why that's frustrating for you.
I imagine he loved them all equally. Just because he admionished them doesn't mean he didn't love them.
Hey Mrs. JB, I caught your reference, and though I agree with your sentiments, there's a sub-plot because of group selectionist rhetoric in that text: (the following was a book review in Nature) A bestiary of chaos and biodiversity PAUL H. HARVEY Paul H. Harvey is in the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl St Martin's Press: 1998735pp. $40 Homosexual and transgender behaviour in the animal kingdom has, over the past 200 years, been frequently dismissed as aberrant. Until now, nobody has attempted to bring together the voluminous scientific literature on the topic. In Biological Exuberance Bruce Bagemihl has done an extraordinary job in compiling a vast bestiary. The species-by-species accounts of adult mammals and birds of the same sex courting and mounting each other, living in pairs, defending joint territories and raising young together are fully documented and referenced, and this book should surely become the standard reference work for research on the topics covered. Bagemihl's 400-page bestiary is preceded by the history of records, studies and evolutionary analyses of homosexual and transgender behaviour. Had it stopped there, I should have applauded a scientific treatise that needed to be written and which, with a few important exceptions, had been accomplished with understanding and rigour. Unfortunately, because more traditional explanations appear insufficient to explain both the high frequencies of these behaviours within species and their recurrence across species, Bagemihl claims to have produced a revolutionary new explanation. In fact he produces no such thing, but instead he rolls together an extraordinary amalgam of concepts ranging in their relevance from the incomprehensible through the unspecified to the inexplicable. Some standard evolutionary explanations for homosexuality are misunderstood or misrepresented in this book. Oddly for someone trained as a biologist and immersed in the topic of evolutionary explanations, the author seems to have missed out on the group-selection debate of the 1960s. The outcome of this was the general acceptance by biologists that evolution by natural selection results in characters that maximize individual reproductive success (or rather, genes that maximize their own reproductive success), even if that is to the detriment of the population. By contrast, for example, in his survey of evolutionary scenarios, Bagemihl considers seriously the idea that "homosexuality, because it is non-reproductive, acts as a self-regulating mechanism to control a species' population growth". A standard population-genetic analysis would refute the concept that homosexuality evolved to regulate populations, but Bagemihl seems unaware of that. This problem aside, I found the (albeit qualitative) pitching of data against theory to be fair, but analytically naive. The frequency of homosexuality and transgender behaviour has been underestimated in nature through both bias and ignorance. For example, among many species it is difficult to distinguish between the sexes in the field, so the one on top during mounting is assumed to be the male. The two other possibilities, that the pair is homosexual or that the one on top is the female of a heterosexual pair, have been frequently disregarded. In many of the best studies, homosexual pairing is observed at a high frequency, in situations where standard evolutionary explanations do not appear to hold. But, as Bagemihl readily admits, the available data are usually insufficient for testing such ideas because they were not collected for that purpose. What he fails to explain, or even mention, is just what has been achieved in the functional analysis of behaviour using, for example, dynamic programming and evolutionarily stable strategy approaches. It is such model-based, analytical methods that should surely form the basis for examining the strategic or evolutionary basis of these behaviours. Speaking personally, it is the general power of evolutionary explanations that has impressed me over the years. If some behaviours are not evolutionarily fine-tuned, this should not be a surprise. However, for Bagemihl, the apparent inadequacy of standard evolutionary theory means that it is time for a revolution. From where should the revolutionary theory to explain these behaviours come? We should start, we are told, by consulting indigenous knowledge and myths. Well, yes, I agree in part ? indigenous peoples have often observed their prey closely for thousands of years, and may have things to tell us about particular species. However, to a greater extent, scientific observations on the peculiarities of the animals involved may help explain the origin of myths. Homosexuality and transgender behaviour are central to many myths, but that does not mean that those myths can explain the reasons for the observed behaviour on which they were based. After indigenous peoples, using a link I fail to grasp, we are instructed to proceed to new philosophical perspectives in science. The first is post-Darwinian evolution, in which heretical ideas are supposedly being proposed by such luminaries as Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders and becoming generally accepted by evolutionary biologists. That was news to me, and again I could not understand what, if anything, was being claimed. After accepting post-Darwinian evolution, we should acknowledge its relation to chaos theory, and together they may well explain the diversity of plumage elaboration found in birds. The task is to attempt a chaos-theory analysis of sexual behaviour, whatever that may mean. At this point I was surprised that Gaia had been omitted from the equation ? but then she appeared. Apparently, Gaia "has prompted a rethinking of some of the most basic principles of evolution. Cooperation, in addition to competition, is seen as an important force of evolutionary change" and teaches us that "it may be beneficial for a species or an ecosystem as a whole if some of its members do not procreate". The logic had lost me ? which was, I suppose, the time to introduce the philosophy of Georges Bataille. Apparently, the problem faced by life is the superabundance of energy coming from the Sun. "According to this view, life should in fact be full of 'wasteful', 'extravagant' and 'excessive' activities", and that is why we have homosexuality and transgender behaviour: they are part of biological exuberance. "Contrary to what we have been taught in high school, reproduction is not the ultimate purpose or inevitable outcome of biology. It is simply one consequence of a much larger pattern of energy 'expenditure' in which the overriding force is the need to use up excess ... Our final resting spot ? the concept of Biological Exuberance ? lies somewhere along the trajectory defined by these three points (chaos, biodiversity, evolution), although its exact location remains strangely imprecise." I regret that such a carefully compiled and well-researched volume should fall down so hopelessly when it comes to interpretation. The danger is, of course, that the baby will be thrown out with the bath water. Nature 397, 402 - 403 (1999)
I thought that I would also post this article too. At first I figured that everyone had read it, but now I'm reminded that there are few great conservative endocrinologists: Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation Measuring people's finger patterns may reveal some surprising information. Animal models have indicated that androgenic steroids acting before birth might influence the sexual orientation of adult humans. Here we examine the androgen-sensitive pattern of finger lengths1, and find evidence that homosexual women are exposed to more prenatal androgen than heterosexual women are; also, men with more than one older brother, who are more likely than first-born males to be homosexual in adulthood2, are exposed to more prenatal androgen than eldest sons. Prenatal androgens may therefore influence adult human sexual orientation in both sexes, and a mother's body appears to 'remember' previously carried sons, altering the fetal development of subsequent sons and increasing the likelihood of homosexuality in adulthood. In women, the index finger (2D, second digit) is almost the same length as the fourth digit (4D), although it may be slightly longer or shorter; in men, the index finger is more often shorter than the fourth. The greater 2D:4D ratio in females is established in two-year-olds1. Because all non-gonadal somatic sex differences in humans appearto be the result of fetal androgens that masculinize males3, the sex difference in the 2D:4D ratio probably reflects the prenatal influence of androgen on males4. In an anonymous survey, 720 adults who were attending public street fairs in the San Francisco area were asked their gender, age, sexual orientation, handedness, and the number and gender of children their mother had carried before them. As expected, men have significantly longer fingers than women (P < 0.001), and we confirmed reports that the 2D:4D ratio is greater in women than it is in men. This sex difference in 2D:4D is greater on the right hand than on the left (Fig. 1a), indicating that the right-hand 2D:4D is more sensitive to fetal androgens than the left-hand ratio. The right-hand 2D:4D ratio of homosexual women was significantly more masculine (that is, smaller) than that of heterosexual women, and did not differ significantly from that of heterosexual men. Thus finger ratios, like otoacoustic emissions5, suggest that at least some homosexual women were exposed to greater levels of fetal androgen than heterosexual women. (image omitted) The 2D:4D ratio of homosexual men was not significantly different from that of heterosexual men for either hand (P > 0.09). However, segregating male subjects based on birth order provided support for the role of fetal androgens in male sexual orientation. The more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to develop a homosexual orientation2. Confirming these reports, we also found that only homosexual men had a greater than expected proportion of brothers (P < 0.01) among their older siblings (229 brothers:163 sisters) compared with the general population (106 males:100 females6). We found that the male 2D:4D ratio, which is unlikely to be influenced by social factors, also varies with the number of older brothers. The ratio was significantly more masculine in men with two or more older brothers than in men with no older brothers (Fig. 1b). There is also a significant correlation (r = -0.104; P < 0.05) between the number of older brothers and the right-hand 2D:4D ratio in men. If male subjects are divided by sexual orientation, the same pattern of later-born men displaying a more masculine 2D:4D is seen. Having older sisters has no apparent influence on male sexual orientation2, or on the 2D:4D ratio in men. No effect of older brothers or sisters on 2D:4D in women was observed, consonant with reports that older siblings exert no effect on female sexual orientation7. Our results suggest that events before birth (or even before conception in the case of older brothers) influence human sexual orientation. The masculinized right-hand 2D:4D ratio in homosexual women may reflect fetal androgen levels that are slightly higher than in heterosexual women. Homosexual men without older brothers have 2D:4D ratios indistinguishable from heterosexual eldest sons, indicating that factors other than fetal androgen (such as genetic influences8, 9) also contribute to sexual orientation. Finger measures indicate that men with more elder brothers, including those men who develop a homosexual orientation, might be exposed to greater than normal levels of prenatal androgen. Although hyper-androgenization of homosexual men might not fit some cultural expectations10, homosexual men display several hyper-masculine characteristics, including a greater mean number of sexual partners in a lifetime than heterosexual men, who in turn report more sexual partners than do women of either orientation. Furthermore, reports that adult homosexual men have more circulating androgens (ref. 11, but see ref. 12), larger genitalia13 and more 'masculine' auditory evoked potentials than heterosexual men14, are consistent with at least some homosexual men being hyper-androgenized. Although it is possible that the maternal influence on finger growth of subsequent sons occurs after birth, a prenatal influence seems more likely because of the extensive physiological pairing of mother and fetus. The locus of the maternal 'memory' for previous sons, and the mechanisms by which fetal development of subsequent sons is altered, remain unknown. TERRANCE J. WILLIAMS, MICHELLE E. PEPITONE, SCOTT E. CHRISTENSEN, BRADLEY M. COOKE, ANDREW D. HUBERMAN, NICHOLAS J. BREEDLOVE, TESSA J. BREEDLOVE, CYNTHIA L. JORDAN & S. MARC BREEDLOVE Department of Psychology and Graduate Groups Neuroscience, Endocrinology, 3210 Tolman Hall, MC 1650, University of California , Berkeley, California 94720-1650, USA
Dont feel bad dude. I agree with you. Well I dont believe gays "choose" to be gay. But regardless its wrong. Its just not natural. A man is suppose to be with a woman to have kids and to survive. A man and a man or a woman and a woman could not survive. Anyways I am not as passionate about his subject as I once was. To each their own. I look at it as leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Dont try to change my opinion and I wont try to change yours.
No offense and I'm not trying to change your mind, but by this logic any man with a low sperm count and most women over 40 are "wrong."
