[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

The view that homosexual sex is immoral is not common.

You are kidding right?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You are kidding right?

That ought to be qualified with in the developed world. That is, excluding some parts of the US.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That ought to be qualified with in the developed world. That is, excluding some parts of the US.

Now THAT's actually funny!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

We are all born with consciences that tell us things might not be right or ok. Even things we aren't TAUGHT.

I'm curious as to what you think of my theory, as we seem to be making precisely the same observation.

The only difference I would surmise is our thoughts as to the origins of that conscience.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That ought to be qualified with in the developed world. That is, excluding some parts of the US.

Aaw erik didn't have anything valid to ad, so he decided to be hateful.

How cute.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

'Why is homosexual sex considered immoral?"

Common sense.

What is it about homosexual sex that you feel is contrary to common sense, and thus immoral?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What is it about homosexual sex that you feel is contrary to common sense, and thus immoral?

What makes anyone have a sense of "maybe thats wrong"
I think they call it "instinct."

Like I said, some people ignore it long enough...

But by all means, don't let my "instincts" effect anyone having a good time.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What makes anyone have a sense of "maybe thats wrong"
I think they call it "instinct."

Like I said, some people ignore it long enough...

But by all means, don't let my "instincts" effect anyone having a good time.

Ah, so no real answer.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Ah, so no real answer.

Wouldn't "instict" be a "real answer", given that they are genetically imprinted survival mechanisms? I can't see why it wouldn't be common sense to follow genetically imprinted survival mechanisms that lead us away from behavior which if done by all our peers, would result in the extinction of the species.

But then again, if all we used was "common sense", there's a heck of a lot of discoveries and worthwhile experiences the human race would miss out on. Some of the greatest inventions and discoveries in the world were found when people thought outside the box and ignored conventional wisdom or "common sense".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wouldn't "instict" be a "real answer", given that they are genetically imprinted survival mechanisms? I can't see why it wouldn't be common sense to follow genetically imprinted survival mechanisms that lead us away from behavior which if done by all our peers, would result in the extinction of the species.

Yes, "instinct" might be a real answer, if Kevin were able to explain why he thinks homosexuality runs contrary to instinct. It seems to me that he wants us to draw our own conclusions so as to avoid making statements that could later be used against him in his effort to equate instinct with common sense with morality.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Would you agree some have common sense and some do not?

Or some have a distorted view of common sense?

Not comparing homosexuals to NAMBLA members, but their "common sense" tells them it's ok to have sex with children.

Obviously they are listening to the wrong voices in their heads.

We are all born with consciences that tell us things might not be right or ok. Even things we aren't TAUGHT.

When one keeps ignoring this "voice" telling them right for wrong, that particular voice stops talking to them. Their sense of common sense is lost.

I would not agree that appeals to "common sense" constitute a valid argument. The only way they could would be to prove that you are "listening to the right voice in your head," and then you don't need to appeal to common sense because you've just objectively proven your point anyway. If appealing to common sense is a valid form of logic, every person in this thread can just go, "Oh, what I'm saying is common sense" and we'll get nowhere even faster than we already do.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You are kidding right?

If it were common, shared by the vast majority - as in "common sense", then we wouldn't have this discussion, would we? Why then are there many states, including some in the US, with civil unions and marriages between same sex partners? Why are there large movements almost everywhere else to allow such unions?

So no, "common sense" doesn't tell that homosexual sex is immoral. Unless you want to argue that hundreds of millions people lack it, which is silly.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wouldn't "instict" be a "real answer", given that they are genetically imprinted survival mechanisms? I can't see why it wouldn't be common sense to follow genetically imprinted survival mechanisms that lead us away from behavior which if done by all our peers, would result in the extinction of the species.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, to try and put it another way...

Whatever factors are at play that makes someone gay or straight (biology if you ask me), it isn't just making them like one form of sex, it's also making them dislike the other form of sex. As in really dislike. Eww, gross.

This "eww, gross" feeling becomes the basis for becoming part of the social code, like in a religion.

OAW

[OldManMac]

Meanwhile, homophobia keeps rearing its ugly head.

Gay News From 365Gay.com

Pair Charged In Gay Man's Slaying
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: March 19, 2007 - 11:00 am ET

(Bartow, Florida) Two men charged with the brutal murder of a gay Winter Haven man have been ordered held without bail following a brief court appearance.

William David Brown Jr., 20, and Joseph Bearden, 21, are charged with first-degree murder and armed robbery in the killing of Ryan Keith Skipper, 25.

The prosecutor said he expects to argue for the maximum sentence on the grounds the killing was a hate crime.

Police had originally begun investigating the murder as a robbery gone wrong until associates of the accused said that Skipper had been killed after coming on to the men.

Skipper's body was found last week on the side of a road. He had been stabbed more than 20 times.

Police said that Skipper had gone out in his car the night of the killing to cruise for men. He apparently found Bearden walking along a local street and offered him a ride. The men went to Skipper's home, smoked marijuana and used Skipper's lap top computer.

Later they left the house and met up with Brown.

Skipper was attacked in his own car. After dumping the body Brown and Bearden allegedly drove to another home where they attempted to clean the car.

When the vehicle was found by police there still was a considerable amount of blood in it. Police say they accused had driven the car around to the homes of several friends showing off the bloody interior.

Skipper is described by friends as outgoing and gentle. He was studying computer sciences.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Meanwhile, homophobia keeps rearing its ugly head.

Seems to me, though, that it's not very wise cruising to pick up strangers and bring them home, in any case.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Seems to me, though, that it's not very wise cruising to pick up strangers and bring them home, in any case.

So, what is your point?

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What makes anyone have a sense of "maybe thats wrong"
I think they call it "instinct."
Like I said, some people ignore it long enough...
But by all means, don't let my "instincts" effect anyone having a good time.

So you're implying that gay people have a voice in their heads telling them to not like guys but they somehow think it would be a 'good time' anyways so they ignore it? If instinct and conscience and common sense (and society) tell us all that it's wrong, what about it would be a good time? Do you think it would be fun to sleep with guys Kevin, and are refraining from it because you believe it to be wrong? If not, then where do you get off making up such obvious BS and talking down to others with your self-righteous judgmentalism? You talk about gays as if they're doing something that everyone would love to do if it wasn't for their religious morals. I don't think that's true at all. I don't think most people would sleep with members of their sex if the pope and Jesus held hands and announced to the world that it was fine and to go ahead. Why act like it's just another sin that people with no morals are indulging in when it's not at all? Where does such intellectual dishonesty get you or anyone else? Being gay isn't like shoplifting. It's not some sin that we'd all do if we'd never get caught. It's an identity that goes to the core of who someone is, and to tell them that they are just out for a 'good time' because they don't care have any common sense is taking nonsense to a new level.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Aaw erik didn't have anything valid to ad, so he decided to be hateful.

How cute.

There was nothing hateful about that statement.

[stupendousman]

The finish this thread up, the answer to the question the thread title refers to:

Homphobia stems from fear, not religion.

Thank you. Good night.

Now, if the question is; "Does disapproval of homosexual acts stem from religion", then many of the replies found here are relevant.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The finish this thread up, the answer to the question the thread title refers to:

Homphobia stems from fear, not religion.

Thank you. Good night.

Now, if the question is; "Does disapproval of homosexual acts stem from religion", then many of the replies found here are relevant.

Though, I'd still like to hear from Kevin as to how he feels homosexuality runs contrary to human instinct and is therefore immoral ...

[Buckaroo]

The appropriate term is HomoNauseous.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

The appropriate term is HomoNauseous.

Okay, I'll bite. That means what?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Though, I'd still like to hear from Kevin as to how he feels homosexuality runs contrary to human instinct and is therefore immoral ...

Maybe there's a fly in the lube?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

This sounds like you aren't quite grokking my argument.

plausible.

I would also like to note that the argument I am making I have qualified as empirical. While based in facts, I explicitly state that these facts are observational.

Your observation was "people are horndogs" then claimed that the fact that everyone isn't bisexual is proof that there's an "eww gross" issue at play here. Meanwhile, decades of research and observation suggests sexuality occurs on a continuum. In other words, exponentially more have engaged in bisexuality than in exclusive homosexuality. This kind of hurts the "eww gross" hypothesis in my opinion.

No, the theory is that whatever is at work that makes someone "straight", is also making them "not gay". The way this manifests is straight people thinking gay sex is "eww, gross".

If what is at work to make someone straight didn't make someone also think eww, gross about gay sex, more people would be bisexual.

It seems you're saying homosexuality (because of its small numbers) and the "eww gross" reaction to it, means homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. I don't want to project on you. I'm not only trying to understand your hypothesis, but the conclusion and the reason for suggesting it.

Plenty of straight people have absolutely no moral issue with homosexual sex whatsoever, yet the concept of engaging in it themselves would turn their stomach. If it didn't turn their stomach, and they had no moral issue with it, what would stop them from doing it?

This is like asking what it'd be like if the sky were plaid. The sky isn't plaid, but if it was it'd be strange for sure. Notwithstanding the fact that some heterosexuals believe having sex with someone the opposite sex WHO ISN'T ATTRACTIVE is "eww gross" too. Not everyone is as "horndog" as you suggest. Most don't have a moral problem with heterosexual sex, but the notion of having it with someone who weighs 600 lbs is not appealing either. Why? I'm guessing because it's abnormal.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

Maybe there's a fly in the lube?

Perhaps. It would appear that Kevin isn't interested in explaining how he feels homosexuality runs contrary to human instinct and is therefore immoral ...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Perhaps. It would appear that Kevin isn't interested in explaining how he feels homosexuality runs contrary to human instinct and is therefore immoral ...

While I'm not Kevin, I thought I explained how homosexuality runs contrary to normal human instinct pretty well. I think it's pretty clear that normal genet

The remaining questing would be, is something that is contrary to human insticnt something that is de facto "immoral". I don't have an answer to that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

While I'm not Kevin, I thought I explained how homosexuality runs contrary to normal human instinct pretty well. I think it's pretty clear that normal genet

Yes, you did.

And I agree that it would appear to run contrary to an instinct to procreate. Though, I would argue that having sex may not be driven by a survival instinct. If it were, there wouldn't be so much pleasure attached as reward to the act. I think having sex may be driven by a instinct to seek things that are pleasurable, with things that are mutually pleasurable to both parties being easier to attain.

The remaining questing would be, is something that is contrary to human insticnt something that is de facto "immoral". I don't have an answer to that.

It's the answer to this question that I'm ultimately waiting to hear back from Kevin on. I suspect Kevin also can't answer this question, hence his silence.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The gods. The realm of mythology and allegory.

Just like Christianity and Islam. The difference between the two is that you didn't bring offerings to the Egyptian gods out of fear of divine retribution, they were guiding principles. If the gods were sometimes gay, that meant that people sometimes being gay was normal. The gods reflect that of life, that is why you had man-gods such as Pharos or Jesus who delivered this meaning on a more personal level.

Religion as guidlines instead rules was also adopted by the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, and Buddhists. Only Christians and Muslims use religion as rules, which is probably why they've had the most wars and killed the most people in the name of their respecctive religions.

Originally Posted by OAW 

As you said .... after the Romans.

I said especially after the Romans, indicating a time before the Romans that the practice was observed.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Link please? Just google "homosexuality in ancient societies" and you get pages upon pages on references to Ancient Greece and Rome. At best you get the occasional and rather reference to some other culture. And why do you suppose that is?

Any anthropology major would tell you that ancient Greece and Rome are the two most popular and most widely covered subjects in anthropology. Go to a library and you'll find entire sections on Greece and Rome alone.

History is infinitely larger than Rome and Greece put together. Just because there is more published information on Greece and Rome doesn't mean that the scope of our knowledge is limited to those two areas.

Why don't you do some of your own research into the various religions and practices of pre-European America (North, Central, and South) as well as read up a little bit on Hinduism and Buddhism.

I'm sorry if Google isn't helping you, occasionally you need to go to a real library. They're not completely obsolete.

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm quite aware of that. And homosexuality is frowned upon consistently across the continent.

Now it is. Why do you keep bring the argument back to the present? I know what the current view point is. The majority of people in Africa are Christian or Muslim. I'm, talking about 2000+ years ago.

Originally Posted by OAW 

I mean think about it ... an "anthropologist" a thousand years in the future can dig up a sh*tload of gay porn in the US, but that still doesn't mean that homosexuality was approved of by the overall society in the early 21st century now does it?

If the anthropologist is basing his entire hypothesis on a single sample, he's not a very good anthropologist.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yes, you did.

And I agree that it would appear to run contrary to an instinct to procreate. Though, I would argue that having sex may not be driven by a survival instinct. If it were, there wouldn't be so much pleasure attached as reward to the act. I think having sex may be driven by a instinct to seek things that are pleasurable, with things that are mutually pleasurable to both parties being easier to attain.


It's the answer to this question that I'm ultimately waiting to hear back from Kevin on. I suspect Kevin also can't answer this question, hence his silence.

The concept of sex for pleasure is far from a universal one, and far from genetic. To this day, there are groups that destroy the clitoris of young girls, as they believe that sex is not for pleasure. There are many that teach their children that sex is a "dirty" act and is to be used for procreation only, and many carry that belief their whole lives through. Even views on what is sexy vary throughout history. Sex for procreation has obviously always been a necessity, as, up until relatively recently in history, high infant mortality rates, and even the relatively short life span of adults, required constant replenishment of our species. Even love is a fairly recent construct, that was absent in most marriages prior to the industrial revolution, when people began seeing that they might have a choice in who they might spend their lives with. I'm not, of course, saying that sex for pleasure didn't exist until recently, but it was far more frowned upon and stigmatized until the last couple of hundred years, and in many parts of the world, it still is.

[stupendousman]

It would be my guess that there is a pleasure based instict as well, but why we as a majority choose not to pleasure ourselves with the same sex is due to the survival instinct.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It seems you're saying homosexuality (because of its small numbers) and the "eww gross" reaction to it, means homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. I don't want to project on you. I'm not only trying to understand your hypothesis, but the conclusion and the reason for suggesting it.

Abnormal? Strictly defined as "deviating from what is normal or ususal"? Absolutely.

Unnatural? Impossible by my theory because I'm postulating a biological phenomena.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Meanwhile, decades of research and observation suggests sexuality occurs on a continuum. In other words, exponentially more have engaged in bisexuality than in exclusive homosexuality. This kind of hurts the "eww gross" hypothesis in my opinion.

I'm not sure where this is getting hung-up. Let me start fresh and break it down into smaller hunks. I sort of jumped right to the point in order to answer the thread topic.

As you point out, in terms of sexuality, the human race is on a continuum between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

The core of my hypothesis is that the fundamental biological building block of human sexuality is a desire to sleep with other humans, upon which a desire to sleep with particular types of humans is built.

In other words, the default brain is bisexual, much as the default foetus is female. With gender, either the foetus stays female or its chromosomes tell it to start turning male. With sexuality, I am saying the brain starts as bisexual and some other biological process makes someone orient towards either females or males (to a certain degree), or doesn't occur at all, leaving them bisexual...

I want to see how this is grabbing you before I go any further, though the rest of it might have clicked already.

If it has clicked yet you disagree, As I said, this is a hypothesis, and there are plenty of other hypotheses out there. For the purposes of argument however, it seems to me that we should let Occam's razor be our guide. A counter-hypothesis should be simpler than mine while allowing for all the types of sexuality on the continuum.

The most obvious alternate hypothesis is that default brain is heterosexual, but it seems far more complicated to me biologically to form all the other types of sexuality out of that.

If there really is an easy way to do it though, that would make it a better hypothesis since it wouldn't have the overhead of making all those bisexual brains hetero.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What makes anyone have a sense of "maybe thats wrong"
I think they call it "instinct."

Like I said, some people ignore it long enough...

But by all means, don't let my "instincts" effect anyone having a good time.

That is an easily defeatable argument: I'm pretty sure, that homosexual people find it instinctively completely wrong to be heterosexually active, as it goes right against their instinctively felt emotions and desires, just like it is the other way around for heterosexual people.

So for me and you, homosexuality is instinctively wrong, because we are not oriented that way, but if we were, it would be the only instinctively right thing.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego;3332414The core of my hypothesis is that the fundamental biological building block of human sexuality is a desire to sleep with other humans, upon which a desire to sleep with particular [i

types[/i] of humans is built.

Right... and generally those types are those who seem most fit for reproduction not unlike the animal kingdom. Tall men, dark-complected, broad-shouldered. Well-endowed women, shapely figure (child-bearing), etc... There are also a host of interesting little studies to show sweat and urine attraction. i.e. a host of women given a pile of shirts to smell and asked to pick the most/least appealing almost invariably chose their brother's as least appealing. In this sense, it seems a mix of instinctual attraction for not only propagation, but the most fit of it and a little social atmosphere.

In other words, the default brain is bisexual, much as the default foetus is female.

From what I've seen, "the default foetus is female" is debatable and not quite that cut and dry.

With gender, either the foetus stays female or its chromosomes tell it to start turning male.

This seems pretty crude, but I thought it had to do with the behavior of the determinate male sperm and as such is determined at conception.

The most obvious alternate hypothesis is that default brain is heterosexual, but it seems far more complicated to me biologically to form all the other types of sexuality out of that.

How many types of sexuality are there???

If there really is an easy way to do it though, that would make it a better hypothesis since it wouldn't have the overhead of making all those bisexual brains hetero.

I don't think brains are bisexual. I think social-environment factors play a more significant role than we give them credit however, no studies to date confirm either a genetic determination of sexuality nor social determination of sexuality.

[Taliesin]

Oh, forgot to adress the actual question: Does homophobia stem from religion?
Not exclusively, but yes: Religiously, at least in most religions, and espescially in the abarahamitic religions, homosexuality is presented as a negative, sinful act.

Sodom and Gommorrah got destroyed by God also because of out of control homosexuality, and in Leviticus there is a rule prohibitting the jewish men from laying with men like they would with women, and in Roman there is a similar approach condemning homosexuality as a severe sin. In the Quran there is the story of Lot and Sodom and Gommorrah also making clear that the towns were destroyed mainly because of the sexual transgressions, and there is also a law punishing homosexual acts...

But all these can be interpreted either as meaning that all homosexuality is sinful and condemnable, or that out of control-homosexuality is sinful, ie. when and if normally heterosexual oriented people practice homosexuality for example as a mean to be sexually active without the responsibilities of having to get engaged/married/raising up children, or simply for the thrill to do something out of the order.

Those religious people that interpret the scriptures to mean that all forms of homosexuality are sinful, develop of course a homophobia.

As I am a religious person, I would have to decide which interpretation I prefer, but I'm still undecided on that topic.

Taliesin

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right... and generally those types are those who seem most fit for reproduction...

Well we haven't gotten to the reproduction part yet.

You always want to go stampeding for the good stuff.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

From what I've seen, "the default foetus is female" is debatable and not quite that cut and dry.

Well, it's going on 20 years since I was in biology, so things could be out of date. I brought it up more for analogy purposes. You seem familiar with the theory, but didn't get my summation...

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This seems pretty crude, but I thought it had to do with the behavior of the determinate male sperm and as such is determined at conception.

The idea isn't saying that sex isn't determined at conception. Here's a more complete summation.

In human development, the default sex of an embryo is female. That is, if development goes unimpeded, the fetus will develop ovaries, fallopian tubes, and other female sexual organs. Two important genes must fire for a person to develop into a male.

Again, I'm bringing this up as an analogy, so even if it's false, it's still useful as an explanation of the type of biological phenomena I'm hypothesizing about.

I also want to make clear that what appeals to me about this is its elegance. Rather than have two distinct types of embryos, biology has one. It then changes it into the other as needed. It's simpler. Biology likes simple elegant solutions. Of course, if the "default" embryo concept is true it does help my hypothesis in the sense that we have an already established example of this type of mechanism at work. That being said, if it isn't true, it doesn't invalidate it's elegance, nor reflect badly on the possibility of my hypothesis being correct, since it's really just an analogy.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How many types of sexuality are there???

Infinite. Along a continuum of 100% heterosexual and 100% homosexual.

Of course, as is obvious, the population is not distributed evenly across the continuum. The majority of the population registers at one of the two 100% marks, and, also obviously, the vast majority of that group is heterosexual.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think brains are bisexual. I think social-environment factors play a more significant role than we give them credit however, no studies to date confirm either a genetic determination of sexuality nor social determination of sexuality.

I've been super duper careful not to mention genetics (excepting my foetus example). I think the lack of ability to confirm one way or the other on this issue should point one to the conclusion that it is a healthy mix of both.

The analogy I like to use (because it has a lot less baggage) is to think of someone who likes blondes. Really likes blondes. They may even go so far as to say they were born liking blondes. I mean, they've liked blondes for as long as they have memories.

They very well could have had a genetic predisposition to liking blondes. A real big one, but were they born liking blondes? I somehow doubt it. Just on the surface, it seems to me that would involve preternatural comprehension on the part of a foetus.

IOW you have to know what a blonde is before you can dig it. Before that, you have a (predisposed) "dig it" part of your brain that has yet to be filled. Even with predisposition there is a required environmental component to this. Note that that doesn't make the process any less biological.

That being said, it seems to me we are dealing with some pretty huge genetic predisposition when it comes to sexual orientation. The majority of the population is at the 100% heterosexual mark. It would be unsurprising if there was a very strong predisposition for heterosexuality in these people. Their majority however, doesn't necessarily seem inconsistent with the default brain being bisexual. Since predisposition to heterosexuality leads to reproduction, it's a successful genotype. Homosexuality, not so much. Those that fall in the middle have varying levels of success for their genotype.

As I have said, my hypotheses are empirical, so I could be way off base here, but it seems to me a predisposition to homosexuality is such a bad genotype in terms of reproduction, that the way our population is distributed across the continuum requires it to flow out of a "default" bisexual.

The most obvious alternate hypothesis is that you have two competing genotypes for predisposition in one's orientation, heterosexual and homosexual, and that bisexual involves a mixture of these two. Since the homosexual genotype is fighting natural selection, why does the population distribution across the continuum stay relatively constant? Likewise, it's inelegant compared to the "default" bisexual, since it requires the creation of two completely different genotypes. My hypothesis has one genotype that contains all the wiring, and a mechanism to give it a nudge. This is more complex than one of the single pure genotypes, but it's less complicated than both of them.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by subego 

Of course, as is obvious, the population is not distributed evenly across the continuum. The majority of the population registers at one of the two 100% marks, and, also obviously, the vast majority of that group is heterosexual.

Like an inverse bellcurve, I imagine.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Like an inverse bellcurve, I imagine.

Skewed really het.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by subego 

Skewed really het.

Actually I'm an idiot. I think I was thinking it'd represent sexual preference in general (left males - right females). I'll move along now.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Actually I'm an idiot. I think I was thinking it'd represent sexual preference in general (left males - right females). I'll move along now.

Well, actually I was thinking that way too (though I had it flipped). I'm really only talking about male sexual orientation. The female curve seems to be different than the male curve. That has been my observation at least.

Sadly, I would attribute this to biology not giving females enough protection against being raped. Ultimately, from a biological perspective, a woman's orientation is a much smaller factor in whether she reproduces or not. As a result, how the mechanism works that moves one from the "default" brain in females isn't as closely tied to natural selection.

At least that would be one way to explain my observations. The curve is shallower for women. Less of the female population registers in the 100% heterosexual column, percentage wise.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, actually I was thinking that way too (though I had it flipped). I'm really only talking about male sexual orientation.

Hence, why I'm an idiot.

Originally Posted by subego 

The curve is shallower for women. Less of the female population registers in the 100% heterosexual column, percentage wise.

And I thank god everyday for that.

[OldManMac]

Being the father of a lesbian, sometime it's hard to remain optimistic, when I consider all the homophobia there is in this world, and especially in a country that prides itself as being the most advanced nation on earth, yet treats many of its citizens as second class ones (and that treatment extends beyond gays).

Sadly, I'm sure there are many who simply dismiss this hatred and prejudice because gays are "immoral," and their beliefs are "unnatural." Fortunately, those dismissals say everything one needs to know about them.

Why Do Straights Hate Gays?

Why Do Straights Hate Gays?
An Aging 72-year-old Gay Man Isn't Hopeful About The Future.
by Larry Kramer


DEAR STRAIGHT PEOPLE,

Why do you hate gay people so much?

Gays are hated. Prove me wrong. Your top general just called us immoral. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is in charge of an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian troops, some fighting for our country in Iraq. A right-wing political commentator, Ann Coulter, gets away with calling a straight presidential candidate a faggot. Even Garrison Keillor, of all people, is making really tacky jokes about gay parents in his column. This, I guess, does not qualify as hate except that it is so distasteful and dumb, often a first step on the way to hate. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama tried to duck the questions that Pace's bigotry raised, confirming what gay people know: that there is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us.

Gays should not vote for any of them. There is not a candidate or major public figure who would not sell gays down the river. We have seen this time after time, even from supposedly progressive politicians such as President Clinton with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and his support of the hideous Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, it's possible that being shunned by gays will make politicians more popular, but at least we will have our self-respect. To vote for them is to collude with them in their utter disdain for us.

Don't any of you wonder why heterosexuals treat gays so brutally year after year after year, as your people take away our manhood, our womanhood, our personhood? Why, even as we die you don't leave us alone. What we can leave our surviving lovers is taxed far more punitively than what you leave your (legal) surviving spouses. Why do you do this? My lover will be unable to afford to live in the house we have made for each other over our lifetime together. This does not happen to you. Taxation without representation is what led to the Revolutionary War. Gay people have paid all the taxes you have. But you have equality, and we don't.

And there's no sign that this situation will change anytime soon. President Bush will leave a legacy of hate for us that will take many decades to cleanse. He has packed virtually every court and every civil service position in the land with people who don't like us. So, even with the most tolerant of new presidents, gays will be unable to break free from this yoke of hate. Courts rule against gays with hateful regularity. And of course the Supreme Court is not going to give us our equality, and in the end, it is from the Supreme Court that such equality must come. If all of this is not hate, I do not know what hate is.

Our feeble gay movement confines most of its demands to marriage. But political candidates are not talking about — and we are not demanding that they talk about — equality. My lover and I don't want to get married just yet, but we sure want to be equal.

You must know that gays get beaten up all the time, all over the world. If someone beats you up because of who you are — your race or ethnic origin — that is considered a hate crime. But in most states, gays are not included in hate crime measures, and Congress has refused to include us in a federal act.

Homosexuality is a punishable crime in a zillion countries, as is any activism on behalf of it. Punishable means prison. Punishable means death. The U.S. government refused our requests that it protest after gay teenagers were hanged in Iran, but it protests many other foreign cruelties. Who cares if a faggot dies? Parts of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. are joining with the Nigerian archbishop, who believes gays should be put in prison. Episcopalians! Whoever thought we'd have to worry about Episcopalians?

Well, whoever thought we'd have to worry about Florida? A young gay man was just killed in Florida because of his sexual orientation. I get reports of gays slain in our country every week. Few of them make news. Fewer are prosecuted. Do you consider it acceptable that 20,000 Christian youths make an annual pilgrimage to San Francisco to pray for gay souls? This is not free speech. This is another version of hate. It is all one world of gay-hate. It always was.

Gays do not realize that the more we become visible, the more we come out of the closet, the more we are hated. Don't those of you straights who claim not to hate us have a responsibility to denounce the hate? Why is it socially acceptable to joke about "girlie men" or to discriminate against us legally with "constitutional" amendments banning gay marriage? Because we cannot marry, we can pass on only a fraction of our estates, we do not have equal parenting rights and we cannot live with a foreigner we love who does not have government permission to stay in this country. These are the equal protections that the Bill of Rights proclaims for all?

Why do you hate us so much that you will not permit us to legally love? I am almost 72, and I have been hated all my life, and I don't see much change coming.

I think your hate is evil.

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred? The reasons always offered are religious ones, but certainly they are not based on the love all religions proclaim.

And even if your objections to gays are religious, why do you have to legislate them so hatefully? Make no mistake: Forbidding gay people to love or marry is based on hate, pure and simple.

You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you.

Larry Kramer is the founder of the protest group ACT UP and the author of "The Tragedy of Today's Gays."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

DEAR STRAIGHT PEOPLE,

Why do you hate gay people so much?

Dearest gay person, I'd like to respond to each of your points in kind. I don't hate you.

Gays are hated. Prove me wrong.

I can't prove you wrong. Unfortunately, fat people are hated, thin people are hated, straight people are hated, black people, hispanic people, arabian people, oriental people, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Episcopalians, Anglo-Euro white men, the kid who can't afford to dress like the other kids, the drug-addict, the drunk, the pastor, these are all among people who are hated. Human nature is hateful.

Your top general just called us immoral.

He's tasked with blowing up things and killing people as a career. He may be a little rough around the edges. Ignorance is not exclusive to civilians.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is in charge of an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian troops, some fighting for our country in Iraq. A right-wing political commentator, Ann Coulter, gets away with calling a straight presidential candidate a faggot.

This is unfortunate. I among many others have expressed our distaste for this rhetoric. I've not spent one dime of my hard-earned money on her exploits and am less likely to now. She only deserves the degree of attention you give her.

Even Garrison Keillor, of all people, is making really tacky jokes about gay parents in his column.

Can you not name for me one group of people outside the scope of ridicule? News columns is the devil Bobby! Okily dokily?

This, I guess, does not qualify as hate except that it is so distasteful and dumb, often a first step on the way to hate.

Everyone's on the step of hating.

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama tried to duck the questions that Pace's bigotry raised, confirming what gay people know: that there is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us.

You seem emotionally connected to this issue as a homosexual, but I can tell you with certainty that candidates running for public office have dared to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent supportive things about you.

Gays should not vote for any of them.

Maybe not.

There is not a candidate or major public figure who would not sell gays down the river. We have seen this time after time, even from supposedly progressive politicians such as President Clinton with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and his support of the hideous Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, it's possible that being shunned by gays will make politicians more popular, but at least we will have our self-respect. To vote for them is to collude with them in their utter disdain for us.

I might recommend the Log Cabin Republicans. "Don't ask don't tell" is sound military policy. The painful fact of the matter is there are those who don't want to be quartered with homosexuals. Your homosexuality has nothing to do with military service. It is no one else's business what your sexual preference is. The battle field is not grounds for advancing your personal social agenda, it is to carry out duties as assigned by your superiors. Period.

Don't any of you wonder why heterosexuals treat gays so brutally year after year after year, as your people take away our manhood,

Cross-dressing males with garishly-heavy makeup, walking on stilts in parades downtown are not helping your cause of maintaining manhood my friend.

our womanhood, our personhood?

If homosexuality is your personhood, I might recommend a more deeply-profound identity.

Why, even as we die you don't leave us alone. What we can leave our surviving lovers is taxed far more punitively than what you leave your (legal) surviving spouses.

Maybe because it's more difficult dealing with the opposite sex, or maybe our government is trying to encourage arguably the most stable environment for society. I don't know. What I can say is that I did not personally build this social construct, the one that has you hated in a zillion other countries.

Why do you do this?

I don't.

My lover will be unable to afford to live in the house we have made for each other over our lifetime together. This does not happen to you.

This happens every day. You mustn't be naive about this. In your long life, you likely know of a mother who can't afford the house her dead husband left for her. I understand your focus, but there is more to societal development than gayness.

Taxation without representation is what led to the Revolutionary War.

I'll remember that as I'm still shelling out for the Spanish-American war.

Gay people have paid all the taxes you have. But you have equality, and we don't.

I don't oppose your right to get married. I don't actively support your right to marry, but that's only because there are more pressing things in my life. There is death, poverty, travesty, and injustice all around us. The plight of the homosexual is among the least of these concerns. I'm sorry, but it is simply so.

And there's no sign that this situation will change anytime soon. President Bush will leave a legacy of hate for us that will take many decades to cleanse. He has packed virtually every court and every civil service position in the land with people who don't like us. So, even with the most tolerant of new presidents, gays will be unable to break free from this yoke of hate. Courts rule against gays with hateful regularity. And of course the Supreme Court is not going to give us our equality, and in the end, it is from the Supreme Court that such equality must come. If all of this is not hate, I do not know what hate is.

The above-named Institutions are trying to encourage the most healthy society they can. They are not perfect as I've indicated to you, a great many homosexuals are not helping your cause either. How well have the gay public officials been forwarding your cause? Ah, so it's not just straights then. Just so we're perfectly clear.

Our feeble gay movement confines most of its demands to marriage. But political candidates are not talking about — and we are not demanding that they talk about — equality. My lover and I don't want to get married just yet, but we sure want to be equal.

You're not wanting to get married. What else in your life has you on an unequal playing field? You don't want the obligations of marriage, but you want the benefits??? It doesn't work that way.

You must know that gays get beaten up all the time, all over the world.

All over the world? I'd be willing to bet a little kid got beat up right down the street from you because he wouldn't give the older kid his basketball. BASKETBALLS FOR ALL CHILDREN!!! NO?!? WHY DO YOU HATE SO MUCH? This just doesn't make any sense to me. Your indictment is against human nature, not straight people. I hate violence and will rail against it any chance I get regardless of why it occurs. Do you truly believe the ignoramus with the "I hate faggots" T-shirt on is thinking about the double-penalty for punching the gay kid? Our global influence is a slow one. Vote for those who believe in the spread of democracy. You don't appreciate what democracy has done for you? At least you can express it in a public forum.

If someone beats you up because of who you are — your race or ethnic origin — that is considered a hate crime.

I should've remembered I was Irish when that kid took my beer and punched me in the face. I could've sued the bat-snot out of him.

But in most states, gays are not included in hate crime measures, and Congress has refused to include us in a federal act.

Did he look gay? Act gay? Did he provoke a straight person? Was he bisexual? I don't understand what you're talking about here. How can you even begin to legislate this??? Are we all to be outfitted with gay-dar or just judges? Is black on black crime hate crime? What if the person who beat the gay kid up was also gay. Do we have the perpetrator sit in a film room with probes on his penis to see if he's aroused by other men? I just don't get it.

Homosexuality is a punishable crime in a zillion countries, as is any activism on behalf of it.

Then you generally support the US military complex and the ideal of spreading democracy. While you may not have the right to marry a gay person, you can express publicly how angry you are about it. Not voting for everyone will not help your cause.

Punishable means prison. Punishable means death. The U.S. government refused our requests that it protest after gay teenagers were hanged in Iran, but it protests many other foreign cruelties.

Such as hanging children? Do they absolutely have to specify that it was gay kids? I don't understand this. Do you hate violence or just violence against homosexuals? I don't care if they were gay or not. Teenagers were hanged in Iran and it's all part of why we've considered them the axis of evil right?
So... you're on board with Bush then or only if he supports gay marriage? I mean, how much do the plights of gay teenagers really mean to you? Are you willing to sacrifice anything at all? This didn't happen in the US.

Who cares if a faggot dies?

I don't want anyone to die.

Parts of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. are joining with the Nigerian archbishop, who believes gays should be put in prison. Episcopalians! Whoever thought we'd have to worry about Episcopalians?

You have to worry about everyone. All the time.

Well, whoever thought we'd have to worry about Florida? A young gay man was just killed in Florida because of his sexual orientation.

What was his sexual orientation? Was he gay? Bisexual? Heterosexual? Was he a pompous geek who opened his mouth? Was the perpetrator also gay? Bisexual? Should we reach for the probes?

When heterosexuals get killed, is it because they are heterosexuals? There is more to the human identity than what gender they prefer. There are many reasons to kill, be killed, and to hate. Homosexuality is among the least of them and the most difficult to define.

I get reports of gays slain in our country every week. Few of them make news. Fewer are prosecuted.

There are nothing, but reports of slayings throughout our country. Ever visited the inner-city? Lots of violence there. Few of any of them make the news. There's simply too many. Mostly heterosexuals. Any time a killer can be found and prosecuted, they will be found and prosecuted. It doesn't matter if the victim is gay or not. It simply doesn't matter. Death and hatred is all around you brother and you're right about one thing; it'll likely never get better.

Do you consider it acceptable that 20,000 Christian youths make an annual pilgrimage to San Francisco to pray for gay souls?

Absolutely!!! I mean, other than the fact that they ought to also be praying for political souls, hetero souls, preacher souls, and for the homosexuals who would dress up like clown nuns screaming anti-Christian sentiment at little Christian kids, but then they'd usually pray for these folks in their church.

This is not free speech.

Neither is cross-dressing and walking on stilts then. The day you'd wake up to illegalized public prayer is the same day a gay-teenager hanging has occurred down the street. Again, what are you willing to sacrifice for your cause?

This is another version of hate. It is all one world of gay-hate. It always was.

There is hate all around you and in most cases it has nothing to do with gender-preference.

Gays do not realize that the more we become visible, the more we come out of the closet, the more we are hated. Don't those of you straights who claim not to hate us have a responsibility to denounce the hate?

I denounce it for what it is; ignorance, fear, and self-loathing in many cases.

Why is it socially acceptable to joke about "girlie men"

Girlie-mens' the devil Bobby!!! If this is hate, you ought to be side by side with Catholics and Evangelical Christians as the most hated among us.

or to discriminate against us legally with "constitutional" amendments banning gay marriage? Because we cannot marry, we can pass on only a fraction of our estates, we do not have equal parenting rights and we cannot live with a foreigner we love who does not have government permission to stay in this country. These are the equal protections that the Bill of Rights proclaims for all?

I know of two separate lesbian couples, both with child. I know a gay man who is raising his child with his boyfriend. Mind you, this is right in the heart of the heartland. There is love here. I'm starting to wonder how old your letter is.

Why do you hate us so much that you will not permit us to legally love? I am almost 72, and I have been hated all my life, and I don't see much change coming.

Why can you not express yourself in a rational manner? No one is making you NOT LOVE. I don't even know what this all means. If you insist on this being somehow anti-love, you'll have to continue wondering why no one steps up for you.

I think your hate is evil.

I think you've placed too much of your identity on your sexual preference.

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred?

Do we ask the gay victim what his sexual preference is within his last breaths? Half-hate sentences for bisexuals. 1/3rd for heteros? There is apparent hatred and there is hatred not easily defined. We cannot generally legislate every social aspect of being because we cannot adequately define it. We can try, but we'll likely make mistakes. We always have, we always will.

The reasons always offered are religious ones, but certainly they are not based on the love all religions proclaim.

I am a Christian. I am a practicing Christian. I am also a heterosexual, a brother, a son, a father, a husband, a charitable person, a musician, and a flirt. I am many things, but a judge of another person's salvation I am not. I would challenge any of my Christian brethren to explain to me how pure they've been, specifically; how sexually pure they are right now. They are not the judge of you brother. I would remind them that the wage of ONE sin is death. The Bible does not weigh sin. It is what it is. Those without it are welcome to caste stones though, when including the thoughts of your mind as Jesus claimed you should; no one is above judgment. No not one.

And even if your objections to gays are religious, why do you have to legislate them so hatefully? Make no mistake: Forbidding gay people to love or marry is based on hate, pure and simple.

You're stating legislation is hindering you from loving. My friend, you will never be happy. I dare say you don't want to be. I want you to consider not only the oppression of gays in those zillion other countries, but what it is like not to have enough to eat, vote, walk down the street without fear of crossing over the DMZ, work, be prosperous, and voice your opinions. In the scheme of things, your need to "love" is not important. I'm sorry.

While you're on your soapbox I want you to consider what gays with whom you associate say about other gays and how they refer to one another. Then I want you to consider how you and they have lumped all Christians together. While doing this, consider how you've lumped all straight people together.

Like I said, hate is all around you. The problem is, you're still not doing a damned thing to stop it.

[OldManMac]

Your generalizations of a tiny minority of the gay community as cross dressers and freaks who walk around on stilts, and as people who shout anti-Christian epithets at little children shows exactly how much you know about the gay community. You're just like most homophobes, who need to grasp at something easy and obvious, so they think they can justify their hatred. After all, they're different, aren't they? Sad!

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He's tasked with blowing up things and killing people as a career. He may be a little rough around the edges.

Hmm, I think he's tasked to tell other people to blow things up and kill.

I personally can't think of a better reason to want those rough edges smoothed over.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Your generalizations of a tiny minority of the gay community as cross dressers and freaks who walk around on stilts, and as people who shout anti-Christian epithets at little children shows exactly how much you know about the gay community. You're just like most homophobes, who need to grasp at something easy and obvious, so they think they can justify their hatred. After all, they're different, aren't they? Sad!

What's sad is the predictable knee-jerk reaction to those who express a perspective different from your own. I never once characterized the gay community as cross dressers and freaks who walk around on stilts. You simply must remain calm and read the words that I've written for you. You may recall my statements were in response to very specific points of the letter. In a couple of instances, I expressed my distaste for the blanket indictments against "straight people". Did I not also generalize those that openly hate gays? Did you miss that? Your insults do not apply to me KarlG. Try again.

How would you know whether or not I'm knowledgable of the gay community? I've often spoken in support of the gay community on these forums and I've explained a personal story of mine to hammer the message home. Granted, it's not much, but I can assure you I'm not part of the problems I read about in that letter to me. Keep in mind, I'm straight. That letter was addressed to me. As a Christian, it included me and I felt compelled to respond. You don't like my perspective? Don't care?

Why should I?

How connected are you to the gay community? I've often found those first to accuse others of something carry some guilt. Now I don't know what you're guilty of, but I urge you to consider what you know of the gay community. Is it a place somehow void of hate? Ignorance? Intolerance? Pride? Indicting all of human nature for hatred is not easy and obvious. IMO what is obvious is that hate and ignorance are not exclusive to the straight person or even the "homophobe". In your vast connectedness, I suspect you've heard some unkind things said by gays about gays. No?

Be honest. If I'm a homophobe, you're at least three times worse.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Hmm, I think he's tasked to tell other people to blow things up and kill.

... and yet the connection is not made of the particular demographic of those skilled at the above.

I personally can't think of a better reason to want those rough edges smoothed over.

On the contrary, it's this "smoothing over" that has us unable to finish jobs. In my opinion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

On the contrary, it's this "smoothing over" that has us unable to finish jobs. In my opinion.

That's kind of broad, but depending on how you define your terms, I can see valid arguments for both sides.

I must admit, I posted a little hastily. The part of a general's job I was thinking about wasn't precisely telling people what to kill and what to blow up, it's the subset of that job which involves sending people whom you've looked in the eye, shaken their hands, and given a good firm pat on the back, to their death. Not the times when maybe you're sending them to their death, the times you know you're sending them there.

There's a fair amount of people who can do this. We call them psychopaths. The mentality that allows someone to do this and not be a psychopath, while also not snapping like a twig in the process (which is what would happen to me), it seems so, so...

Well... It seems so gosh darn refined.

When I think of generals I think of this, so when you said rough around the edges I went "huh?"


P.S. I just want to add that whatever someone's mental state is, constantly subjecting yourself to the kind of dilemma generals face obviously isn't a very healthy thing to do.

I appreciate (as much as I can) and applaud the sacrifice they make in doing so.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't want anyone to die.

That is an interesting statement. Are you sure, that you don't want anyone to die? Imagine, that from this moment on noone ever dies anymore, but reproduction would continue, this planet would very quickly get overcrowded, ressources are finite, and people would get hungry very quickly, and thirsty but unable to die, they would eternally suffer a lot of pains...

Another angle is, if noone dies, then noone can get ressurected and noone comes into heaven/paradise and noone comes into hell... are you sure that you don't want anyone to die?

Taliesin

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

That is an interesting statement. Are you sure, that you don't want anyone to die? Imagine, that from this moment on noone ever dies anymore, but reproduction would continue, this planet would very quickly get overcrowded, ressources are finite, and people would get hungry very quickly, and thirsty but unable to die, they would eternally suffer a lot of pains...

Another angle is, if noone dies, then noone can get ressurected and noone comes into heaven/paradise and noone comes into hell... are you sure that you don't want anyone to die?

If everyone was gay it would solve all these problems. No one would have to die but there would be no over-population as the numbers would remain fixed, the wars would be over instantly since nobody could join the army, and nobody would miss out on going to heaven since they all would have gone to hell anyway.