The orientation question!

[Seymour]

First of all, I definitely appreciate your response and being more direct. It makes it much easier for me to understand where you coming from.

People can engage in homosexual sexual acts or behaviour for a range of different reasons without it being their defacto sexual orientation.

I'm thinking mainly of screeds of stuff I read by feminists who were "political lesbians" and the reaction which they experienced from homosexuals when they decided to formally "leave" that community, marry, settle down and have kids (without abandoning feminism). Now dont anyone ask me for the references, I wish to God I had them, they were articles in the Guardian (UK liberal broadsheet newspaper) and its weekend magazin publication/supplement. That's one example.

I would agree that some women seem to be more fluid in their sexuality than most men seem to be. I don't think it follows that every lesbian can "choose" to be straight (not that you were saying that). I think there has been a strain of "political lesbianism," and it's not something I understand on a personal level, nor do I know enough about it to really comment.

I work in social services and I've as a consequence met a lot of people who because of a variety of what's pretty obvious, to me anyhow, problems and developmental deficits gravitate toward ANY apparently open and inviting community identity, including the gay scene, for some of them they meet or get involved with pretty predatory individuals, some of whom are without a doubt bordering upon peadopilia behaviour.

Why this association of being gay with pedophilia and being predatory? I hardly see being "open and inviting" being negative, unless you mean "actively recruiting and seductive." Studies show that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else. In fact, most studies show that non-opportunistic/habitual pedophiles typically lack any kind of functional adult orientation.

I dont believe there is any longer neutrality on the topic of sexuality, homosexality is statistically a minority community, remove the troubled individuals who have gravitated to the scene or other sorts of people who use the scene as a flag of convenience for other sinister sexual behaviour and it is an even smaller minority.

Again, why the association of homosexual with predatory? Why do you think that a large percentage of gay people were recruited or ended up gay because of undue influence? Why the association with "other sinister sexual behavior?"

I think it's true that adolescents can experiment with various kinds of identities, not all of them healthy.

It seems like you are judging homosexuality based on some exaggerated stereotype, which I don't think is terribly different than judging heterosexuality by what's portrayed on "The Jersey Shore" (a reality TV show) or by people involved in the "swinging" lifestyle (heck, they actively recruit!).

Yet if when contacted by someone who appears distressed, confused about their sexual identity or relationships you attribute it to anything other than insepant or emerging homosexuality you can very readily be labelled a bigot and a homophobe. Raise your kids with an expectation of heterosexual orientation, like each of their parents, and you could be considered a bigot. State that it is not within the nature of the overwhelming majority of the population, anywhere, and you'll be branded either a bigot or a homophobe.

It does seem like you feel lots of people are forced and seduced into homosexuality. Maybe I've lived a charmed life, but I haven't seen that, personally.

Granted, I can't say that people are never forced into homosexuality (my personal experience is limited), but you seem to think it happens often enough to outweigh other concerns. I get a real sense of you finding homosexuality to be actively predatory by nature, and wonder where that is coming from. I sort of wish you could see all the boring, prosaic examples of "gay lifestyles" that I've seen. People living those kind of lives probably aren't the most visible or loudest, but they do exist and I suspect are the majority of the LGBT population.

I think someone confused about their sexuality should be given space to think about it, neither rushed into trying things, nor stomped upon because they might not be heterosexual. Just talking to someone about any "homosexual urges" takes a lot of courage.

I certainly wouldn't brand anyone who stated that an overwhelming majority of people are heterosexual as a bigot. And for a kid being a heterosexual is a reasonable thing to expect (seeing as you'll be right 90+% of the time). Still, that's different from making homosexuality a reason for social condemnation and ostracism, or thinking that such treatment is somehow necessary for the mental health of heterosexuals.

It seems like on the one hand you are saying that your sexuality is fixed and has never been vulnerable (and I believe you, my experience of my own is the same). Yet you seem to feel like other heterosexuals are incredibly vulnerable to the predations of homosexuals and can be easily swayed toward being homosexual.

That's why I think a boundary has been crossed from acknowledging its existence, from acceptance, to approval to actual promotion. That's as a matter of policy and fact. Personally I've never ever met a homosexual who did not say that they believed that all people were either bisexual or homosexual and that heterosexuality was just invented for breeding, switch the categories about a bit and you'll, again, be considered a bigot or a homophobe for saying so.

Again, I disagree since I think most people are heterosexual, and I'm a homosexual myself. I don't rule out a percentage of people being truly bisexual, or there being cases of situational bisexuality/homosexuality (like in prisons). I still don't see actual promotion as "policy and fact," but maybe our standards of what qualifies as "promotion" differs, or maybe we are seeing a US vs UK split.

Would you wish that the torment you mention be experienced by the vast majority of maturing young adults who arent homosexual or may never have so much as met a homosexual? What about people experiencing the label of bigot or phobic when in reality they dont care? I'm not personalising this, its a hypothetical or topical question BTW

I'm fine with people not caring. Not caring beats judging or punishing any day. And I still don't see what torment is going to be inflicted on straight people. I think heterosexuality is a fine and wonderful thing... just not for me. We have lots of unknowns growing up: we don't know exactly how tall we'll be, what we are going to be good at, what subjects we'll love in school. I don't see how allowing homosexuality as an atypical but healthy alternative will cause additional distress.

It seems like you are saying it's better to cause a lot of distress to a minority, rather than some minor uncertainty to a majority.

Hmm, I'm unsure that I agree with that but if its your opinion then that's grand. My reason for not thinking its a good idea or wanting to condone it is that too often those sentiments get transfered to others, including complete strangers, whom you do not have a right to expect acceptance, approval or endorsement from. That goes for any sort of rejection though, its basic emotional competence, which is different from politics, culture or norms.

Well, i think we are agreed that living in a victim mentality for the long term is unhealthy. I can see your point that demanding external approval to make up for lack of internal approval is unlikely to be a success strategy. There are some interesting studies on "minority stress" suffered by LGBT folks, and its association with different kinds of mental illness. It kind of feels like you are coming down on a symptom while supporting its probable cause.

Yeah, who could disagree? Suicide or marriages based upon some sort of deceit arent good for anyone (its a different topic but I dont understand how men come out as homosexual after being married for years and fathering children. I could not physically get an erection to perform homosexual sex acts, I'm not sure if I could even under pain of death - that happened in some of the Serbian prison camps during the Bosnian war were rape was used as a weapon of war - seperate topic though).

A lot of sexuality happens in the mind, and the imagination is a powerful thing. Plus, there are physical responses that aren't consciously controlled. I don't think it's healthy or fun to force oneself though those kinds of things, but it can be possible for some people. I don't recommend it. Still, if you agree that LGBT suicides and gays entering into straight marriages are a bad thing, the negative effects of accepting gays and lesbians must be quite high in your book.

Equally I dont believe that someone who is distressed, confused and in crisis is at the best stage of their life to have a particularly sexual lifestyle pitched to them, they're pretty vulnerable and could be like your hypothetical gay man who gets married. I shit you not too that people will do seriously crazy things when they have attachment disorders or complex trauma from childhood.

i agree. Taking advantage of people in vulnerable situations is bad. Still, we do have heterosexuality pitched to us continually, yet a small minority still turn out gay anyway. Why should it be different for heterosexuality with acceptance of both heterosexuality and homosexuality?

Its perhaps a UK phenomenon, have you heard of a UK TV show Little Britain? In it they lampoon a lot of things that people darent talk about even, things that are pretty taboo, like the disabled guy who is capable of things that are greater than most able bodied people can achieve when no one is looking. Anyway, in this show they lampoon the real "scene" individual whose sexuality pretty much defines everything about them and sees persecution at every turn.

And people like that do exist, I'm sure. Again, I see that as a case of over investing in the victim mentality. I also think it's partially caused by being marginalized so that being gay isn't allowed to be seen as a minor thing.

And "Little Britain" is all about taking stereotypes to ridiculous lengths. I don't think they'd argue that every person is a wheel chair is faking it (do you?), or every woman who assists people from behind a computer is hilariously unhelpful. Plus, since one of the duo is gay himself, I doubt he trying to critique homosexuality in general, just lampooning some ridiculous aspects of a subculture.

There are extremists on all sides and from the sound of it you definitely arent one but would you by the same token generalise your experiences to the entire population?

I don't deny there are extremists on all sides (including gay extremists). It's true that experiencing discrimination and judgment does tend to engender anger. Still, I do know a number of gay people and have been out for a long time. It's not impossible that my experience and awareness of gay people, especially less flamboyant ones, is broader than yours. The media doesn't spend a whole lot of time on the ordinary.

There are people who're aggrieved enough for instance to post any amount of flames on books on Amazon with critique homosexuality as popularly portrayed simply because. They dont even want that opinion expressed.

I'm sure there are, some because they have personally experienced the negative consequences. Others because they are looking for someone to blame, or are angry at their situation. I see a similar (if sometimes less extreme) dynamic happen with politically liberal and conservative book reviews on amazon, too.

Some books do present as fact the results of studies that are dated, were never peer reviewed and/or were flawed in design. Others make claims that homosexuality can always be "cured," and that it is always the result of trauma or other psychological issues. I can see how those kinds of things would make people angry who bear the brunt of that kind of thinking.

Still, I doubt that online posters represent a balanced cross section of any population. If I had to judge the human race by youtube comments, I would have no hope whatsoever for humanity in any respect.

I'll be honest with you, if my brother was homosexual he'd not be invited if he had a partner with him, not to my house or I suspect my parents house, it wouldnt mean that they were any the less my brother but they know how I feel about that. However that's a personal, familial thing and everyone needs to reach their own conclusions.

It is a familial thing, and no one else can or should dictate how your family would resolve such a situation. I do wonder why he wouldn't be invited, though. Would he be because it would set a bad example? Would it be to protect your kids from exposure? Would it be because you wouldn't want to give the appearance of support? Would it be because it would be too weird and it would make people too uncomfortable? What good results from the exclusion?

The unreasonable expectations I'm talking about is basically seeking the approval and affirmation of strangers, this isnt restricted to homosexuals though, if I heard an particular faith practitioner or member of an ethnic community expressing the same I'd have a similar issue. Already I think that state paternalism has institutionalised to an extent the expectation that more mature individuals will take responsiblity for the feelings and even behaviour of others who are less responsible, its gone far enough.

Well, I don't expect everyone to approve or go march in a parade on my behalf. I admit it would be nice if everyone did approve, but it would be unrealistic to expect that at this point. As an aside, I think in general questions of self responsibility vs community responsibility are interesting, but a much bigger topic, really.

In the UK there's a lot of agitation by homosexuals against the age of conscent, neither the homosexual movement itself nor anyone else has made much of a reply to it. I did hear a radio four broadcast once in which the most prominant gay rights agitator in the UK, who is not carving out a niche for himself lobby for the "sexual rights" of children, was part of a panel on the topic and had no answer at all for the child psychologists who had evidence based opinions about the links between early sexualised behaviour and childhood trauma, risk taking or self injurious behaviours. Instead he just reiterated his point, complained about oppression again.

Now maybe this is something unique to the UK but there you go, its were I'm from and how I form my judgements.

I'm not aware of such agitation generally in the U.S. I stated my general support of age of consent laws above (as I have before). Plus, the leaders that emerge representing a group aren't always ideal, and they often hold more extreme positions than the group at large. I'm not always thrilled with the people who claim to represent me. I doubt you are thrilled with all the attention the "Mrs. Robinson" scandal has gotten, since it really doesn't have anything to do with the validity of arguments on either side.

So, my overall sense is that your interactions with gay people personally haven't been particularly positive, and the gay politicians and activists you've heard only confirmed your impressions, plus they hit some area of political irritation as well. None of that helped you get over your initial feeling of unease that is only natural when confronted with something foreign. I'm sorry if that's the case. All I can ask is that you keep an open mind, and allow for the possibility that the examples you've seen aren't necessarily indicative of LGBT people as a whole. Most of us just want to live our lives, settle down with the right person, and not have to sacrifice other aspects of our life to do so. Doesn't seem unreasonable from my end.

 

[Lark]

Geeze Seymour man, that's a humungous postarama, will maybe respond to it but in a day or too, been foruming a lot of think its messing with my concentration.

 

[Seymour]

Geeze Seymour man, that's a humungous postarama, will maybe respond to it but in a day or too, been foruming a lot of think its messing with my concentration.

Take your time. Appreciate your reading and mulling.

 

[Lark]

Take your time. Appreciate your reading and mulling.

Wouldnt want you to think I was ignoring you and I appreciate you putting what looks like a lot of effort into the post, somedays I'm more interested than others. Its different to have an exchange on the topic without a lot of flames and BS but its not in the top five favourite topics I like to discuss really. Will read it though, eventually

 

[Seymour]

Wouldnt want you to think I was ignoring you and I appreciate you putting what looks like a lot of effort into the post, somedays I'm more interested than others. Its different to have an exchange on the topic without a lot of flames and BS but its not in the top five favourite topics I like to discuss really. Will read it though, eventually

Actually not my favorite one to natter on about, either... despite my recent posting history.

 

[Not_Me]

I doubt anyone can credibly argue that gay sex is bad for society. Even from a reproductive perspective, gay sex is no worse than practices such as oral sex, contraception and abstinence.

Besides, how often is sex done for procreation anyways? It's a recreational activity.

 

[Gerbah]

Well, some people think it is bad. Just bad. That was why I was asking. I figure the people who are find with it don't think it is necessarily good, just there are people who think it is downright bad and immoral.

I was hesitant to say much about this topic because I find it such a complicated issue. Generally, I think a person's sexuality (beyond being hetero or gay, just in general) is a complex and delicate thing. It is very sensitive and to be handled with care and interlinked with all the other parts of your personality. So in that sense it's difficult to generalise. It is easily blocked, hindered, disturbed, perverted, etc. as far as you can imagine, with all the manifestations of desires/lack of it that go with those. A person could have various issues/preferences just within the heterosexual spectrum, so a gay person's sexuality is going to be as unique as that person. I can't judge a person's unique case.

That said, I do think that there is a healthy sexuality and an unhealthy one. And personally, I think homosexuality is not a healthy sexuality. I just don't think its impact on you as a person as a whole is a good and happy one, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc. in the long-term. And whatever is not healthy for you as an individual is not healthy for society as whole either, in the long-term and wholistically speaking.

It is hard for me to express because as I said before, each person is different and it's hard to generalise without being simplistic. I can maybe give examples that I have found interesting. I was reading a newspaper article the other day written by a man who had lived most of his life firmly gay, but then somehow one day he saw a father and son and there was something about the interaction that made him want to have his own family and own children. So he decided to stop having gay sex. He said that he still felt the “siren call” of gay sex but he had actively decided not to have that kind of sex in order to build himself up to be able to have a family of his own one day if he could find a woman sensitive enough to accept him as he was. Until then, he's working with children to get to know them better.

Another person I found interesting was a man talking on a Catholic TV channel. He was very articulate and lucid. For him, he started to say no to his gay desires when he realised that in his search for the “perfect partner”, which he thought he would find in another man, what he was really looking for was a perfect relationship, and he realised that the perfection he was looking for was in his relationship to his Creator. He also said that he thought it was important for fathers to show love and affection to their sons, and that this was a certain factor and that he had to accept that the past cannot be changed and he just has to live with the implications and consequences.

I also find interesting the case of gay men who put a time limit on how long they will have sex with other men and after a certain age, they plan not to do it any more. To me, that indicates that for those individuals, they feel there is something not desirable in it, but at the same time they want to enjoy it, so they plan to have the enjoyment for just a while.

 

[Lark]

I doubt anyone can credibly argue that gay sex is bad for society. Even from a reproductive perspective, gay sex is no worse than practices such as oral sex, contraception and abstinence.

Besides, how often is sex done for procreation anyways? It's a recreational activity.

These are really good points, however I would suggest there are problems when you attempt to generalise sexual behaviour to all people, it is no more normative to behave in a homosexual manner for heterosexuals than it is vice versa.

I think that a lot of the dilemmas or antagonism generated from this topic politically or otherwise are in reality minority-majority relations issues, it raises some good questions about equality, diversity and like treatment, uniform expectations etc.

For instance I'm absolutely convinced that in some people, not all but definitely some people, homosexual behaviour and apparent orientation are in fact symptomatic of maturational crisis, maladjustment and illness.

There are also individuals who use homosexual lifestyles as a convenient cover for much more deviant drives or development. That's not exclusive to the homosexual community but both the homosexual and heterosexual community seem to have grown a little bit more ambivalent about it than when it manifests in more obvious appearences.

Now that is attacked as a bigoted perspective, sometimes labelled a phobic reaction, I can understand why because there are individuals who ARE bigotted or phobic who use any flag of convenience to cover it. On the other hand I do believe that its a legitimate perspective quite apart from how it services those interests, not simply because its my view, although I understand if there's people who disagree with that.

 

[matmos]

No.

(But one should never be relativistic, where anything goes.

Taken too far relativism becomes fundamentalism.)

 

[Moiety]

Homosexuality is as much bad/good as any other kind of preference. Pistachio over vanilla for example.

 

[Qre:us]

Is heterosexuality a bad thing?

 

[Katsuni]

Historically, it was not looked down upon; in rome it was so perfectly normal, that it didn't have any term for it to my knowledge. The idea was that a man+man relationship would always go deeper than any male+female one ever could, as females were just for procreation. It was a sexist belief but, yeu know, in some ways people do understand their own gender 'better' than the opposite, so it makes sense in a way.

In one civilization, their entire military was gay, and they recruited gay young males from other countries, and treated them quite well. Napolien had some interaction with them but I forget whether it was for good or ill.

In any case, there's actually quite a few cases where gays/lesbians were considered anything but bad.

Even in the bible it *NEVER* says gays are evil or anything... just the actual act of sodomy/gay sex, because it has a pretty strict stance against sexual acts which aren't specifically used for procreation. The idea of sex for love or pleasure is more or less forbidden, and as gay/lesbian sex CAN'T involve procreation (yet! They're actually working on that; good news to transgenders in that regard), it means that it must be for other reasons and therefore is a sin.

The idea of "sex" in general is a weird one; pedophilia was perfectly accepted and encouraged in rome at one point. In the 1600's it was equally normal for a 30 year old man to marry a 12-14 year old girl and have sex with her. Our current standards are subjective and mean nothing more than whot we put into them.

As such, no, homosexuality is nothing 'evil' at all, it really is just a difference of preference.

We all have our preferences, though many of us may not have gone to any lengths to learn whot those are, or suppress them as they seem too 'weird'. That's for physical sex though... for emotional bonding, to truly LOVE someone, this may actually NOT match up, it's been found in studies. Of course I kind of figured that already, but it's nice to have proof to back it up with.

Yeu may find yeu LOVE guys' bodies and their naughtybits, but really have no emotional connection at all, and can only find true love in a woman's arms. Or vice versa. The genders are admittedly different in some ways, and it's fully possible for yeu to be physically attracted one way, and emotionally another. So are yeu gay then or whot are yeu? Most figure Bisexual, but it's really not the case, I'm just not sure whot yeu'd call it XD

In any case, yeu have physical preferences, and emotional preferences. Physical ones are just fetishes, they apply to everyone, it's just whot turns yeu on. If yeu're a guy and a male's body turns yeu on... well... it doesn't mean yeu're really truly gay as such... it just means that's one of yeur kinks yeu find arousing. It doesn't mean yeu want to marry them and live togeather long term.

And emotionally... yeu love who yeu love. Yeu don't really get a choice in the matter. And true love is quite, quite blind. I simply don't understand why yeu would deny yeurself of one of the greatest things in life, simply because everyone else is an ass about it. If they don't want yeu to find love, that's their problem, not yeurs, nor should it be yeur problem.

As such, I see nothing wrong with being gay on the physical, nor emotional level; other than, of course, the fact that it is flawed in the same way being "straight" is. We're all very slightly bisexual creatures to some small degree, otherwise we couldn't admire or recognize beauty in our own gender. We just view it in different ways usually is all, mostly due to conditioning. Being strictly straight or gay though, tends to mean yeu've just actively said yeu refuse to accept love or pleasure from someone simply because of how they were born. That's yeur regrettable choice to refuse such without even considering it. Yeu possibly just missed out on something truly special, because yeu weren't open to the possibility.

 

[teslashock]

There's a reason that homosexuals can't naturally reproduce with each other, and that's 'cause God didn't want their vile ways taking over humanity!

 

[Jaguar]

There's a reason that homosexuals can't naturally reproduce with each other, and that's 'cause God didn't want their vile ways taking over humanity!

.

 

[simulatedworld]

Even in the bible it *NEVER* says gays are evil or anything... just the actual act of sodomy/gay sex, because it has a pretty strict stance against sexual acts which aren't specifically used for procreation.

Good news, everyone! Avoiding eternal damnation is as simple as life-long celibacy!

 

[Qre:us]

Even in the bible it *NEVER* says gays are evil or anything... just the actual act of sodomy/gay sex, because it has a pretty strict stance against sexual acts which aren't specifically used for procreation. The idea of sex for love or pleasure is more or less forbidden, and as gay/lesbian sex CAN'T involve procreation (yet! They're actually working on that; good news to transgenders in that regard), it means that it must be for other reasons and therefore is a sin.

Blowjob is out, cunnilingus is out, kissing is out, fondling is out, anal is out (not in), heavy petting is out, boob sucking is out, using contraceptive is out, masturbation is out.....

sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin....

Stictly, penis meet vagina, everything else...

....what a fun world that would be!

 

[ChildoftheProphets]

I voted "Unsure" on the poll.

I'm certainly not for banning homosexual relations or marriage, because sex and marriage are issues of personal privacy and religious freedom.

Still, from my own religious standpoint, I've heard a lot of good arguments for and against such things. And of course, biologically speaking, homosexuality is ultimately just the product of random genetic mutation, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[kyuuei]

Uhm.. I'm going with no. This thread makes me dizzy

 

[Qre:us]

And of course, biologically speaking, homosexuality is ultimately just the product of random genetic mutation, nothing more, nothing less.

Every variation in organisms is ultimately due to genetic mutation. Blue eyes, green eyes, brown eyes, tall, short, curly hair, straight hair, dark skin, light skin, etc...

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[ChildoftheProphets]

Even in the bible it *NEVER* says gays are evil or anything... just the actual act of sodomy/gay sex, because it has a pretty strict stance against sexual acts which aren't specifically used for procreation. The idea of sex for love or pleasure is more or less forbidden, and as gay/lesbian sex CAN'T involve procreation . . . .

I agree with this analysis for the most part, and I often wonder if the Old Testament would have been less harsh on gays, women, and non-procreative sex if there been more reliable forms of contraception and disease prevention back then.

I disagree, though, that Judaism and Christianity have anything against sex for pleasure or love. God says in Genesis that it's "not good for man to be alone," and Paul the apostle says to the Corinthians that those who "burn with passion" should get married as soon as possible, lest they be consumed by adulterous thoughts and behavior.