After the buttsex though, right?[/QUOTE]
no, after the love that knows no name...
"Homosexuality - Is it a problem in need of a cure?" - CNN
- Status
no, after the love that knows no name...
S
Steven Soderburgin
OH NO HOW AWFUL
CAN'T HAVE ANYONE THINK THAT HE MIGHT BE A GAY
CAN'T HAVE ANYONE THINK THAT HE MIGHT BE A GAY
K
Kitty Sinatra
Who thinks I'm gay?
I'LL BASH THEIR TEETH IN!
I'LL BASH THEIR TEETH IN!
S
Steven Soderburgin
with yo dilz
Do you find it odd when some one completely misidentifies you?
It is called sexual identity for a reason.
And it is better that it happened after he had mellowed quite a bit.
S
Steven Soderburgin
A little bit, but a quick correction and all is well. I imagine that your brother shaving his mustache had more to do with a societal stigma associated with being gay than it had to do with the mere fact that he was misidentified.
But WHATEVS
But WHATEVS
C
Chazwozel
This has inspired me to wear ass-less chaps and a leather biker hat for a week.
Dave
Staff member
This has inspired me to wear ass-less chaps and a leather biker hat for a week.[/QUOTE]
Again?
S
Steven Soderburgin
Man, wear what you want. As long as you ain't hurtin' no one, then do what makes you happy.
K
Kitty Sinatra
I think Steven Sodombugger is hitting on you, Chaz.
Jesus, dude.
S
Steven Soderburgin
I ain't into leather.
K
Kitty Sinatra
Too far?
If so, sorry, Kissinger
If so, sorry, Kissinger
S
Steven Soderburgin
Apology accepted, moving on
SO to get back to the topic, this whole "Presenting both sides as equals even if one side is completely, demonstrably false" thing on the news is terrible and stupid.
SO to get back to the topic, this whole "Presenting both sides as equals even if one side is completely, demonstrably false" thing on the news is terrible and stupid.
I hesitate to stick my neck out at all, because I am of the opinion that homosexuality is not a problem, and not in need of a cure. But it does strike me as a question worth considering, even if for only a moment.
I mean, from an evolutionary standpoint homosexuality is bizarre. Yes, other animals do have gay sex, but those animals also have heterosexual sex in order to propagate the species, so at best I would call them bisexual. And by that logic, bisexuality would make perfect sense in humanity. But in a biological and/or evolutionary sense, there doesn't seem to be any long-term advantage to the existence of pure homosexuals.
Again, to clarify, I am not anti-gay. Even if I believed such a thing were possible, I wouldn't support the 'curing' of homosexuals. Personally, I feel like we're at the point where we are mature enough in our human culture where we can be bigger than what biology or evolution dictates. For that reason I see no benefit to 'curing' homosexuals (if I might use such crass vernacular). But I can see why others might feel differently.
That said, 90% of those who will flock to the 'unnatural' argument aren't there because they see that it makes sense or agree with it. Fuck, 90% of them don't even believe in evolution to begin with. But I can see why somebody, not everybody, but somebody might think that way.
I mean, from an evolutionary standpoint homosexuality is bizarre. Yes, other animals do have gay sex, but those animals also have heterosexual sex in order to propagate the species, so at best I would call them bisexual. And by that logic, bisexuality would make perfect sense in humanity. But in a biological and/or evolutionary sense, there doesn't seem to be any long-term advantage to the existence of pure homosexuals.
Again, to clarify, I am not anti-gay. Even if I believed such a thing were possible, I wouldn't support the 'curing' of homosexuals. Personally, I feel like we're at the point where we are mature enough in our human culture where we can be bigger than what biology or evolution dictates. For that reason I see no benefit to 'curing' homosexuals (if I might use such crass vernacular). But I can see why others might feel differently.
That said, 90% of those who will flock to the 'unnatural' argument aren't there because they see that it makes sense or agree with it. Fuck, 90% of them don't even believe in evolution to begin with. But I can see why somebody, not everybody, but somebody might think that way.
S
Steven Soderburgin
There's a really interesting episode of This American Life about how homosexuality's designation as a disorder in the DSM was changed and the reasons and implications behind that change. You can stream it free here: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/81-Words
Rob do you mean to imply that from a purely biological-evolutionary view that homosexuals are simply "dead-ends" as they do not contribute to the populace?
Given that they would not contribute biologically to the next generation if they could help it, I'm saying that it is not strange to me that some would think of homosexuality as unnatural, and that someone might conclude that (were it possible) 'curing' homosexuals would be a good idea.
Kissinger, I'm listening to that radio program now. Promises to be interesting. I think we touch briefly on the subject in my Mental Health Ethics course I did a few years ago, but that course had more to do with the history of treatment of depression and schizophrenics than 'sexual deviants.'
A
Andromache
I heard Rob King was posting in this thread, so I brought my protests signs and torches. Just in case.
Awesome. Just finished up listening a few minutes ago. A fascinating story, and one that makes a hell of a lot of sense. I can see why some of the opponents of the change acted like they did. It was pointed out at the end that all studies that had been done on homosexuals were done on homosexuals who were already institutionalized for other reasons. If you take for granted that homosexuality fucks a person up, and the climate is such that well-adjusted homosexuals keep mostly underground, that homosexuality is a pathology seems to be a perfectly reasonable conclusion. And the behavior of gay activists mentioned in the program seemed largely unhelpful too.
Still though, it does not make 'homosexuality is unnatural' a impossible argument. It's not a pathology, yes, or any other sort of disorder. It would seem that the world is agreed on that. But were a 'gay gene' identified, the fact that it isn't a disorder won't save it from scrutiny. Neither will the fact that homosexuals can live just as full and enriching lives as anyone else.
C
Chazwozel
Actually evolution does dictate a percentage of a population to be homosexual or non reproducing.
Wow. I didn't know that. Are you able to elaborate a bit?
(Huh. I never realized how bad this place can sometimes get until I had to re-write that sentence about a dozen times to make it clear that I'm not trying to be sarcastic at all)
K
Kitty Sinatra
And you still came off as incredibly sarcastic 
It would be the end of it all. Overpopulation is bad enough as it is, imagine what would happen if everybody was straight. Ugh, I don't even want to imagine that horrendous scenery...
K
Kitty Sinatra
I don't think an extra 3 percent of the population procreating will have any significant effect - especially since those being "cured" will mostly live in Industrialized regions where birth rates are really damn low, and there are plenty of homosexuals who have procreated, anyway.
S
Steven Soderburgin
http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/09/CNN_Responds_to_Exgay_Segment_Critics/
You can watch the segment at the link
North_Ranger
Staff member
Wow. I didn't know that. Are you able to elaborate a bit?
(Huh. I never realized how bad this place can sometimes get until I had to re-write that sentence about a dozen times to make it clear that I'm not trying to be sarcastic at all)[/QUOTE]
I'm not a scientist like our lifetime-member-of-the-Blue-Oyster shark here, but I do recall the argument about the evolutionary value of homosexuality being discussed in a popular science journal I ordered a few years back. Can't find the article, though... and it's in Finnish anyway. Basically, the argument by some anthropologists was that the less masculine and more feminine behaviour of homosexual males among early hominids was actually a kind of method to make sure that as many children as possible grew up. The argument was that the presence of gay males curbed some of the aggressive tendencies of the other males, and they helped the females in rearing the children of the pack/tribe/group.
As for lesbians... the article didn't say.
V
Violent Drunk Ray Romano
Wow. I didn't know that. Are you able to elaborate a bit?
(Huh. I never realized how bad this place can sometimes get until I had to re-write that sentence about a dozen times to make it clear that I'm not trying to be sarcastic at all)[/QUOTE]
I'm not a scientist like our lifetime-member-of-the-Blue-Oyster shark here, but I do recall the argument about the evolutionary value of homosexuality being discussed in a popular science journal I ordered a few years back. Can't find the article, though... and it's in Finnish anyway. Basically, the argument by some anthropologists was that the less masculine and more feminine behaviour of homosexual males among early hominids was actually a kind of method to make sure that as many children as possible grew up. The argument was that the presence of gay males curbed some of the aggressive tendencies of the other males, and they helped the females in rearing the children of the pack/tribe/group.
As for lesbians... the article didn't say.[/QUOTE]
You're referring to the same studies I am. +1 Science for you! There's other shit too, like a particular species of prairie dog. While not having anything to do with homosexuality, some of these little guys act as an alarm system for the entire prairie dog town. In essence they will make a high pitch noise to warn the colony that predators are around. This behavior is thought to be counter-adaptive, in that these dog's are at higher risk to being eaten and not breed (thus not passing on the genes). It gets more complicated than that, but the overall story is that as a whole the population benefits much more with these individuals than without them.
I absolutely hate it when people come out with the argument that homosexuality is something 'unnatural' and against our desire to create offspring. Species survival functions as whole populations; not individuals.
So the argument is that, just like the suicidal alarm-sounding prairie dogs, there is a social benefit to homosexuality? I can definitely buy that. But in the prairie-dog example, I would assume that the alarm dogs have reproduced, and/or that every animal could raise the alarm and be eaten, it's just a matter of circumstance which sees who goes and who doesn't.
But if homosexuality were an inherited trait (is it? I don't know) how would it be passed on? I mean ... in the past, sure, homosexuals stay closeted and many of them take on spouses to keep up appearances. But we're seemingly past (or, getting there) the stage where even homosexuals are coerced into reproduction. Would there, then, be a worry that homosexuality might yet be bred out?
But if homosexuality were an inherited trait (is it? I don't know) how would it be passed on? I mean ... in the past, sure, homosexuals stay closeted and many of them take on spouses to keep up appearances. But we're seemingly past (or, getting there) the stage where even homosexuals are coerced into reproduction. Would there, then, be a worry that homosexuality might yet be bred out?
V
Violent Drunk Ray Romano
In my professional opinion, I don't believe there is a homosexuality gene that specifically get's 'turned on' to make you gay. I think it's a very complex set of things that get balanced out as an individual grows based off that individuals hormonal levels, environment, and yes, genetic makeup. Being gay or straight is no different than being tall or short, fat or skinny. It's just what happens as a roll of the dice as you as an individual develop.
As far as homosexuality and its role in society. I don't know. That's not my field of expertise, but I know a couple guys who are, more or less, populations biologists I can ask.
Cool, yeah. I mean, I realize I can be a bit of a nerd sometimes, but I'd be interested to see what they would have to say, even if it's just a ten word version.
Honestly, the thing that makes me most fearful in this whole discussion is what would happen if some 'gay gene' were to be found. It would be a fucking mess. Again, I don't hold the belief personally, but we all know that homosexuality as an aberration is a pretty widespread opinion. And it doesn't take much looking around to see an (arguably) more black-and-white example. I have read of deaf people who have had children born with curable conditions eschewing treatment that will allow their children to hear based on the desire to foster a deaf family identity.
What I'm saying is that lots of people think that homosexuality is acceptable and normal. Much fewer people think that deafness is a positive trait, and even so, there have been people interfering with the treatment of others in order to include or exclude people from the deaf community. Could you imagine a choose-your-child's-sexuality option? A fucking mess.
- Status