Nathan Tyree: Cut and cut and cut and paste
So, a buddy of mine got involved in a cut and pasted version of a conversation, which he had ti ipmort to another blog so that.... oh hell, here:
*************************************************************8
I've been using this site called ventilation. It's sort of a blog. There was a post made by a former co-worker the other day, and I had to leave a comment. What follows is a transcript of his entry, along with my response to his post.
jestmeister: Fun With Fellow Alums! UPDATED!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update! I've added the most recent entries. We have a "Last Post", folks!
A few months ago, my wife began using a myspace-ish social networking site called Bebo. Bebo is school-centric, so if you went to, say, Humboldt High School, you can look up other Humboldt High Schoolers.
Out of interest to see who else had signed up, I created an account, and toyed with it. I never liked it much, however, as, even on the internet, it's still a small town. Whatever I type on there, the clerk at Johnson's General Store is going to know about tomorrow.
However, an interesting topic was broached the other day, and I had to join in. What follows is a transcript of the original entry, and all comments following. I said mostly what I said because I wanted a little fact, but I also wanted to fan the flames a little bit too. Who doesn't like a little high school controversy.
Names have been changed to protect the stupid. I am the only member of HHS class of '98 commenting.
Shit-Stirrer
Ok, first of all, I know this is probably going to start a lot more crap, and of course it will be interesting to see if this beats my last blog in number of comments. What I am asking here is: Does anyone think that homosexuality is strictly caused by environment, or from genetics, or is it a combination of both? Please note that I really want to keep this a friendly discussion. I don't want anyone to get insulted, offended, etc. I'm not asking if you believe if it is morally wrong, or why you feel that way. That's not the issue here and that is an entirely different subject, so please keep that part out of it. Keep in mind that someone who reads this could have a gay friend, or family member, or could even be gay themselves. So please respect everyone's feelings and don't turn this into a "gay bashing" session. That said, comment away!
60 Comments:
Mith Myopic said...
3 days ago
Of course I have an opinion! Actually, I have some facts as well, although I will have to check before I can cite the source.
I believe that homosexuality falls into the same category as pedophilia, porn addicition, sex addiction, severe promiscuity, ect. In other words, a deviant sexual behavior. I do not necessarily list it on the same severity level as some of the others, but I do believe it to be deviant.
I also believe that some people are "coerced, forced, encouraged" into homosexuality by environment, traumatic experiences, certain traits that lend them to "appear" homosexual, ect.
The fact part is that a majority of gay people have had some sort of traumatic experience or abuse in their past, which would lend to the belief that environment has a strong play on sexual orientation.
Is homosexuality sometimes caused by genetics? Possibly, in the same way that someone would have a predisposition to something as small as a fetish or large as a deviant behavior.
Shit-Stirrer said...
3 days ago
Any kind of behavior that falls out of society's "norm" is considered deviant. I thought you made some good points. So, if homosexuality isn't caused by a gene, but it's the product of sexual abuse, absent or abusive parents, etc.. that would mean the person choose to be gay; it wasn't beyond his/her control. I've always found it interesting that the majority of gay mean have the same tones of voice, mannerisms, etc., all of which are associated with being gay. I've also always wondered, because a lot of people think that it is strictly environmental, what created that first "gay environment"? What made that very first person gay? I have a hard time believing that so many people would choose this lifestyle given the amount of "negativity" it receives. I don't know either way, of course, but I think that it can be caused by your environment, and I think that some people are born with the predisposition.
Meaningless Drivel said...
3 days ago
I think Mith Myopic had great points! I think that they are a product of their environment. We are what we are in the present due to our pasts and our environment. The only genetic thing that I think might play a part in thier decision to become gay is that maybe some women who are not as feminine as others may feel they are not found attractive by men for this reason- and men that do not feel masculine enough to some women may feel more easily accepted by being gay, because they may not feel as accepted by the opposite sex. Although I do realize that this is not always the case. People can make the same exact decision and have entirely different reasons for making it. And in saying genetics I mean features given to us hereditarily by genetics. I am not saying that I think gay people are genetically born gay.
Nephew O' Shit-Stirrer said...
3 days ago
i believe that people can be both born and influenced into homosexuality, only because people have to understand i have known gay people my whole life and me myself am not gay, which proves i can't be influenced, people could say the same for smoking or drinking, if you were born into a world of these such "habits" doesn't mean they can be picked up, there are also gangsters who are hardcore that are gay, which means that some of the genes in their bodies lead them to believe they have a special situation with themselves, and also what about hermaphrodites, i mean some are worse than others, but wouldn't it much harder for them, they are a little bit both so whichever sex they choose to lead their lives, means they will be gay either way, in a way...not to change the subject, but myself as a psychology student in college has a book that will discuss this all to those who oppose!!!
Mith Myopic said...
3 days ago
Thanks Meaningless Drivel!
I would not say choice, or at least not conscious choice. I mean, why would anyone choose something that is going to make their lives miserable? (Trying to avoid the gay-bash here, not saying gay is miserable, but def not the straight white male way of life, kwim?) Some people do make choices that will make their lives miserable (ie no job, abuse alcohol or drugs, ect).
I agree that just being around a certain influence (my parents both smoke/smoked, I never have) does not confirm you will do the same, but it does have a strong effect. Also, many things that you do not even realize have an effect on you.
Physically anomonolies like hermaphroditism (is that a word) are a completely different story. IMO genes make that call.
Shit-Stirrer said...
3 days ago
So, if homosexuality is environmental and not genetic at all, is heterosexuality? Do we also choose NOT to be gay?
The Mrs. said...
3 days ago
I will probably think better of this later but oh well here is my opinion. I believe it is genetic. I don't have the source I will see if I can find it but I probably won't be able to but anyway. They have done tests EEG for example (mappings of the brain)etc and have found several differences between heterosexual and homosexual individuals. I used to believe when I was a lot younger like jr high, possibly even into high school, that it was a choice. I hadn't ever really spoken to anyone openly who was gay so I really had no idea, but I changed my beliefs after having spoken to some of my friends and family about it. I am sure that in some cases it is environmental but I feel that in most cases is it a chemical change in the brain etc. We may never know what makes one person realize they are heterosexual and the other realize they are homosexual.
Aunt O' Shit-Stirrer said...
3 days ago
It is genetic!!! Even the animals in the forest, rivers, mountains, etc. select mates of the same sex not only humans have homosexuality in their population. Oh by the way perverts come in all sexual orientations, color, cultures, religion, men, women, etc.
Jestmeister said...
3 days ago
I tell you what, I'll never forget the day I "chose" to be straight. I mean, who can forget when they made that choice?
Shit-Stirrer, as for your observation that many gay people speak alike and share mannerisms, I have noticed this as well. However, I think it is just a part of their culture. I've had the benefit of watching someone "come out" over the course of several years, and I swear he gets "gayer" everytime I see him. If you think about, many social/ethnic groups have their own speak/mannerisms.
To compare a victim necessiant crime such as pedophilia to homosexuality shows a severe amount of narrow mindedness. Tell me please, who is the victim of a homosexual relationship?
Besides altar boys, that is.
Of course, you will find there is no mention of pedophilia in The Bible.
Friend O' Jestmeister said...
3 days ago
Nicely put, Jestmeister.
Jestmeister said...
3 days ago
“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.†- Lynn Lavner
The Bible seems to be the basis for many people's belief that homosexuality is a deviant behavior. This is mostly due to the Old Testament story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Another interesting excerpt from the Old Testament:
"And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean..." (yada yada yada, unclean) "...But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness." - Leviticus 15:19-30
Something tells me Christians aren't making posterboard signs about this.
I guess, in closing, I'd just like for once, to hear non-Biblical reasoning as to what about homosexuality is more deviant than heterosexuality.
Procreation is not a valid defense, as we all know that it is a vast minority that has sex merely for procreation and not enjoyment.
Other than that, the floor is open. Please use logic if you are going to make the attempt.
Oh, and Mith Myopic, please provide a reference for this comment. I'm interested in this fact.
"The fact part is that a majority of gay people have had some sort of traumatic experience or abuse in their past, which would lend to the belief that environment has a strong play on sexual orientation."
Aunt O' Shit-Stirrer said...
3 days ago
Jestmeister neither are deviant. A deviant is whole another animal, they could be a deviant who likes same sex, or opposite sex, or little children, or old people, or animals. Their are many kinds of deviants out there and they come in all sizes, shapes, sexs, and sex orientations. The one thing a deviant has in common with other deviants is they are SICK in the HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And if they can be caught they need to go to jail for a very, very very long time.
Shit-Stirrer said...
3 days ago
First of all, thanks everyone for staying open minded. I don't know where Meaningless Drivel went, she commented and now suddenly I am blocked from her page, but ok... anyways, homosexuality is considered to be deviant behavior (I think I said this?) because it falls outside of society's norms... it is actually a form of informal deviance, because it does not violate any laws or anything like that (which is formal deviance). I personally believe that it is both (not necessarily at the same time). I do believe that in some situations, it can be caused by outside influences. But I also believe that sometimes it can also be brought out by an environment, meaning the tendency was already there, just suppressed. I do know that sometimes it can be brought on by traumatic experiences, such as molestation and abuse, but this definitely isn't the "norm." As of today, there is no clear answer on what causes it, just theories. Studies have been done extensively concerning the biological side of it, one of which was a study done on twins (both fraternal and identical) and adopted brothers. According to research, it was found that the closer the degree of genetic relationship (with identical twins being the closest due to the fact that they have identical genes), the more likely it was that when one brother was homosexual, the other brother would also be. The point of this study was to show that the twins shared genetic makeup, and the only thing that the adopted brothers shared was their upbringing (or environment). The end result was that 52% of the identical twins were both homosexual, 22% of the fraternal twins were, and 11% of the adopted brothers were. This doesn't necessarily prove or disprove either theory, but it doesn't rule them out either, and this is only one specific study. The results for lesbians were very similar to this as well. So this does support the theory that there is some genetic involvement. Another genetic angle to look at is the differences in brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Some neurobiologists have discovered that there is a small difference in a cluster of neurons within the hypothalamus (which has an involvement in sexual behavior in humans). In male homosexuals and heterosexual women, the cluster of neurons was only half the normal size of the cluster found in heterosexual men, and this may play a part in predetermining sexual orientation, but there is no way to really know if this actually plays a key role in causing homosexual tendencies. It does show that some biological factors are correlated with a sexual orientation. It's a good theory with some good grounds, but not necessarily a fact. As for environmental aspects and early life issues, it has been shown that it isn't necessarily true that it is caused by early sexual abuse or abnormal relationships between parents and children, such as having a father who is an inadequate male role model or having a very dominant mother.
Studies have also shown that sexual orientation is determined before adolescence and long before the beginning of normal sexual activity. The pattern is similar between heterosexuals and homosexuals; the sexual feelings are aroused way before the individual expresses them in some form of sexual behavior. Other researchers also believe that sexual orientation is determined as young as six years old. At that age, most children don't even really know what heterosexuality is, much less homosexuality. Once sexual orientation has been established, it is highly resistant to change, for both hetero and homosexuals. The majority of homosexuals wouldn't be able to change their orientation, the same as heterosexuals, even if they wanted to. This is what makes it seem unfair to say that gays "chose" to be that way, just as much as it seems wrong to say that heterosexuals chose to be straight. I know of lots of people who are very openly gay, some who hid it for years and finally "came out", and a few who have flat out said that they don't want to be gay, and have never wanted it. This is where my own theory of biological involvement comes in. I once worked with a man who was very obviously gay, but he never admitted to it for years. We all later found out that he had been married for years and had children, but one day realized that he just wasn't attracted to women and he had been fighting his homosexual urges for years simply because he didn't want them (the urges). He didn't choose to be gay; instead he tried to make himself into something he wasn't (a heterosexual male). Ultimately, it has been proven that psychological, biological, social and cultural factors ARE involved determining sexual orientation, but no one knows exactly what the factors are and how they interact. It should also be known that no one is positive about what makes some people heterosexual either, whether we are born that way or whether we choose to be, but as Jestmeister said, I don't remember ever waking up one day and thinking that I would much rather be straight than be a lesbian. To restate my original question, if homosexuality is purely caused by a person's environment, what created that first "homosexual environment"? Wouldn't there need to be some form of homosexuality in the first place in order to influence others? I meant to put this in earlier, but with the sexual abuse and traumatic life experiences, these things occur quite often to many different people, but the majority of the victims actually do NOT "turn out" gay. A number of them do, but not the vast majority, so we are unable to positively say that these things do cause it.
Nephew O' Shit-Stirrer said...
3 days ago
really why does it matter if it is either, honestly if you are straight how are u, asa person affected either way with what someone else chooses, i know i'm takin this conversation to a new point, but really if someone is gay let the scientists decide what is genetic, or picked up, everyone is born with a different "problem" some worse than others, for example many ppl are born with defects, others are born with mental illness, others are just born, and for example i'm not gay so i have no reason to worry, for those homo-phobes really nothing should bother u about a man or woman hitting on you, its the same as an ugly chick, instead of pickigna fight just tell them no, but really it doesn't hurt the enviroment, there are plenty of sluts around to bring up the population if the gays increase, but the world won't end up gay, there is no reason to single them out, most of them have more positive traits than most normal guys, i mean girls like them better than some men, no reason to beat them up, or poke fun at them, i mean i really don't feel odd getting asked out by another guy, no harm no foul, really we shouldn't stop the marrying of gays, there are worse things out there to worry about then ppl choosing a lifestyle, rather than perverts who break serious laws rather than sodomy, i think rape of children or the outrageous number of murders that are local around here, and this is kansas imagine what its like in the real "jungle" i odn't wanna bring this blog down by my opinions but they are mine so it might just make ppl think a little, gays don't hurt the world at all, really i mean religion it hurts the religion and makes it look more acceptible, but if somebody chose that life, then u really can't change it, its not like drugs or alcoholism, its a lifestyle not a rehabilitated problem.and we all know "god made adam and eve, not adam and steve" but c'mon they know what they are doing, let them do it.really its both and there is nothing wrong with a persons choice
Shit-Stirrer said...
3 days ago
OK well yeah this did move it to a new level, and I don't want it to get out of control here... but... I don't know why people worry about it either. I don't think gays and lesbians go around hitting on everyone just because they are gay, and if it's not for you, that's great. It shouldn't have an effect on anyone else, as long as they are kept out of it. If people ("Reverand" Phelps comes to mind here) believe that all gays are sinners and are destined to go to hell, let them go, and let them deal with it. YOU aren't going to hell because someone else is gay. This is kind of where I laugh at "tolerance": if you are opposed to it at all, you can't be tolerant of it. Tolerance is allowing something without opposition. You can't really "allow" it, because there isn't much you can do to stop it, but if you believe it's wrong, you aren't tolerating it at all.
Well I myself pretty much went against what I originally said about what to blog on here, abour right and wrong. I just wanted that cleared up before the blog started so it didn't start out on a bad note. If you want to explain why you feel a certain way, that's ok, just respect other people's feelings and opinions and don't get out of control! (That goes for you too, Cousin O' Shit-Stirrer!) If someone is against it, let them say that and don't jump on them for feeling that way. But for those who are against it, please refrain from using any kind of hateful references and insulting comments! (And the same goes for those who are ok about it).
Meaningless Drivel said...
2 days ago
Shit-Stirrer- Not sure what happened yesterday! I didn't block you! When I was in the middle of posting a comment it came up that I was blocked from your page. The only thing I can come up with is if you deleted yourself briefly from Humboldt High School and I wasn't on your friends list then it would have blocked me from getting to your page and you to mine. And I only have mine set up where friends can view my page so that could have been what happened! But you were on my friends list and then when that block came up on my end it took you off my friends list and off my mailing list? Dunno I guess it could be a bebo glitch!
I agree with Shit-Stirrer that it is someone else's life and thier decisions and even if someone doesn't agree doesn't mean we can't be tolerable of others. Being tolerable of other people doesn't compromise our own beliefs. This being said not only about this topic but many others. You shouldn't write someone completely off just because they share a different lifestyle or opinion.
Jestmeister said...
2 days ago
I'm curious as to who then, is deciding "society's" norms? Is it simply a majority/minority issue? If so, am I a "deviant" for using a Mac, as most people use a Windows PC?
For that matter, there is a vast majority of white people as compared to black people in the U.S. Does this make all black people "deviant".
Looking into genetic statistics really proves nothing. If I prefer Pepsi to Coke it will effect my brain waves when thinking about cola. It doesn't prove that I was genetically predispositioned to Pepsi, I just happen to prefer it. I don't prefer Pepsi as the result of some form of abuse I received in my past. I haven't been "conditioned" to prefer Pepsi, despite advertising. I've tasted both, and know which I prefer.
My question is, what about homosexuality is wrong? Why do we feel the need to justify/villify the practice of it? If nobody is getting hurt, why not just live and let live?
Shit-Stirrer said...
2 days ago
Homosexuality is not considered to be abnormal sexual behavior by psychiatrists and psychologists. Certain people have decided it's wrong. Lots of things are considered informal deviant behaviors; nose picking, people with purple hair, etc. Formal deviance is where the child molesters and rapists come in. Social norms are the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors.
Short Beacon O' Rationality said...
2 days ago
This is a very interesting Blog. I understand where most people are coming from. I think Jestmeister and Cousin O' Shit-Stirrer make great points. I do not think that homosexuality is a deviant beahavior though.
Shit-Stirrer said...
2 days ago
Socially and psychologically, it is defined as a deviant behavior because any behavior that is not "typical" in a society is defined as deviant. Homosexuality does fall under that category, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is considered to be bad. Not all deviant behavior is. It isn't the majority in our society, which means that it is not the typical behavior of our particular society. Like I said before, people with purple hair, nudists, etc. they are all considered to be exhibiting deviant behavior, because how many people do you normally see walking around naked? Get it? (By the way, I'm a psych major like Cousin O' Shit-Stirrer...all this info is coming from my social science, psych and sociology classes, I'm not just making it up )
Jestmeister said...
2 days ago
But by that rational, you have just affirmed that my using a Macintosh is deviant behavior.
Come to think of it, it is the result of abuse I experienced from Windows...
I think if more people were exposed to actual openly homosexual people their views would change (as opposed to homosexual people exposing themselves openly). I find many of those who are quick to weigh in with a negative view of homosexuality know only of the swishy stereotypes they see on television or of the demented pervert that is the center of the moral cautionary tale.
Shit-Stirrer said...
2 days ago
Technically, I guess that your using a Mac could be considered deviant but probably only by other computer nerds! hahahaha I don't think that the majority of society cares what kind of computer everyone else uses.
Confused Girl said...
2 days ago
Jestmeister in your comment from Leviticus 15; 19-30 what is that about? It also talks about a man being unclean. Would you please explain what your point is with that? I am sorry, maybe I am being a blonde about this but I don't understand where that has anything to do with being homosexual or not. Thanks
Confused Girl said...
2 days ago
I neither agree or disagree about this subject. I believe that everyone has a reason for what they believe and I am not a person who should be judging anyone weather they choose to be that way or if they are born that way! We are just supposed to love everyone! Aren't we?!
Nephew O' Shit-Stirrer said...
2 days ago
I do believe one thing and that all the questions to these blogs will be answered in the afterlife and people u have to ask yourself, do you really wanna know if its either one, what do we as ppl gain in knowing what it is, i mean i totally agree with Jestmeister just because somethin is different doesn't mean its completely wrong, i mean really 100 years ago sodomy was illegal in every state, that would take homosexuality out due to the fear of goin to prison, also i mean really the only reason its so hard for people to accept is the fact that people cannot accept change in the society or culture, everyone is about traditoin, and the traditional family is hetersexual male and female with at least one boy and girl, maybe evolution has something to do with the way people are born these days, really look cncer rates are up, how many people were reported to haveing cancer in the early 1900's change is inevitable to the future and people must accept change...
Jestmeister said...
2 days ago
Confused Girl,
The quote from Leviticus is talking about menstruation. Boiled down, it states that a woman who is menstruating is unclean for a week. Any one who touches her, or anything she has touched is also unclean. According to this verse, she must go before a priest after her menstruation and make offerings to be cleansed.
Leviticus is the same book of The Bible that contains 2 of the book's 3 mentions of homosexuality.
My point is that people don't get in an uproar over a menstruating woman, but stand in the streets with signs proclaiming God hates fags. It's this kind of selective interpretation of The Bible that irritates me.
So, no, the verse has nothing to do with homosexuality. It was meant to illustrate a point.
Hope that clears it up!
"I don't think that the majority of society cares what kind of computer everyone else uses."
That's exactly what's at issue here. Why do they care if a couple of guys want to make out and maybe have sex? Seems to me the problem lies with the majority, not the gays.
Aunt O' Shit-Stirrer said...
2 days ago
Yeah Jestmeister, you are on the right track. But human nature of some people needs someone to think they are better than. It has been religion, gender, and race before and still is but I agee with you Jestmeister, Gay Bashing, no matter how civilized it is, is still Gay Bashing. Jestmeister, you hold your high moral standard. You are right we should accept people for being people.
Shit-Stirrer said...
2 days ago
I agree too, it really shouldn't matter to anyone either way, but unfortunately it does. The comment about Mac users was a joke, I'm sure you know that... what I meant was that the majority of the population is heterosexual, which makes that the norm, and that homosexuality is considered deviant because it is outside the norm... I think I am getting confusing here, I will see what I can find that I can post, a link or something... The signs that I remember seeing up and down Topeka Blvd. "God Hates Fags" "Fags Go To Hell" (Courtesy of Phelps, we once threw fruit at him) almost make me want to laugh. I thought that God frowned upon people who judged as well? I suppose that because he is a "Reverend" he believes that he is speaking for God... anyways, I personally don't believe that homosexuality is wrong, Confused Girl is right, we shouldn't judge anyone else for what they choose to do, we need to make our own choices and worry about them. By saying that homosexuality is deviant behavior, I didn't mean to imply that it was wrong, or that it was considered wrong by society as a whole. I could care less if a man chooses to be with another man or with a woman. It has no reflection on my own life, and if I went to the mall and saw a guy kissing another guy, I wouldn't look at it any differently than if it were a guy and a girl (PDAs irritate me regarless of the sexual orientation, but that is beside the point). At one time African Americans were looked down upon, and while that still goes on today, it's not quite as extreme as it used to be. Maybe one day society will change to accept homosexuality in a more positive way. Most of the feedback I have ever gotten on it being wrong was from religious viewpoints, which is why I think that if they believe it is sinful, they aren't the ones committing that sin, so they need to let that go and focus on making their own life as sin-free as possible.
And I do think the problem lies with the majority. How many gay people do you know that go around picketing heterosexuality? They obviously aren't of the same orientation, but yet they don't condemn people for not being gay.
"Deviant behavior is behavior that is a recognized violation of social norms. Formal and informal social controls attempt to prevent and minimize deviance. One such control is through the medicalization of deviance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviant_behavior
Mith Myopic said...
1 day ago
Jewish people (orthodox anyway) still take the Leviticus passage very seriously. They pretty much live the old testament.
Thanks for the altar boy dig. Don't worry, my Catholic father in law can not resist either.
The perpetrators in our sample had all had sexual encounters as children, and there was evidence of a relationship between this childhood experience and sexual abuse as an adult. The sexual abuse had a narcissistic quality to it that the perpetrator identified with the victim. The victim was usually the same sex as the perpetrator, and frequently the victim was approximately the same age as the offender when he was victimized, and in a number of cases the sexual acts were the same. In addition, the family backgrounds of perpetrators reflect deprivation and harsh treatment.[Kathleen Coulborn Faller, Child Sexual Abuse: An Interdisciplinary Manual for Diagnosis, Case Management, and Treatment (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 85-86]
This unwillingness to seriously consider a possible connection between child sexual abuse and adult homosexuality is insane. I was astonished at how many books written even 15 years ago on the subject of child sexual abuse admit that adult homosexuality is a common response. Yet this has become almost like arguing for a flat-Earth today.
I am not going to perpetuate the "homosexuality is ok, homosexuality is wrong" tirade. Non-religiously, if same sex can marry (which is a deviant behavior) then how long before children can marry, polygamy, maybe even animals. The problem with changing such huge, long lasting laws and precedents is the allowance of other deviant behaviors.
I always remember Mr. [High School Teacher 1] talking about religious freedom and why some places do not allow anyone in- the elementary school gym is not open for a Catholic lock-in so that when the Satan worshipping chicken killers come in they can be turned down also. (those are my words, not his!) We either allow everything or we allow "nothing".
Shit-Stirrer said...
20 hours ago
This is probably true, and probably why so many people are pushing to get gay marriage banned completely. I don't think there is really a law against children getting married, with parental consent. I'm sure Cousin O' Shit-Stirrer remembers this, when a 13 (14?)year old girl here in Humboldt got married to a 25 year old a few years ago, and yes, it was legal and everyone threw a fit. But her parents allowed it so there was nothing much to be done.
Oh, and FYI: Husband O' Shit-Stirrer was an altar boy.
Nephew O' Shit-Stirrer said...
18 hours ago
and look how he turned out
Shit-Stirrer said...
15 hours ago
My point exactly! hahaha
Jestmeister said...
12 hours ago
"We either allow everything or we allow 'nothing'."
I guess that removes male/female marriage from the table as well?
Mr. [High School Teacher 1]'s example (I remember it as well) was an extreme illustration. If there was a Catholic lock in, there wouldn't be precedent for letting in chicken killers, at least not to kill chickens. However, it would then only be fair to allow other religions to congregate in the school gym. Believe it or not, all non-Christian religions aren't murderous. In fact, most of them are much less militant. But, I digress.
Let's go back to your book quote. While I don't have physical access to this book, Google now has a wonderful book search service at http://books.google.com. I looked up the volume you mentioned, and sure enough, your first paragraph was in it. In a chapter about pedophilia. The chapter stated that all the pedophiles in their test were sexually abused as children. It also stated that many of the abuses were same sex encounters. However, what it did not say, was that sexually abused children all grow up to be homosexual, or that most homosexuals are the result of child abuse.
Your next paragraph is not part of the aforementioned study. It's not even part of the same book. I searched all of Google books for several portions of it, and was unable to find it. Perhaps you could reference it, but why bother, as it seems to be one persons opinion.
Nice try making it look like it was part of the previously referenced study. Or did you just have trouble with the italics?
Now, let's get to the best part, your comparison of homosexual human beings to animals. This has to be one of the most insensitive and, quite frankly, idiotic things I have read in quite some time.
Were adult homosexuals allowed the civil right to marry, it would not lead to any of your ridiculous speculations, as they are in no way related.
You know what, I'm wasting my time.
To quote Jesus, "Peace be with you."
To quote me, "PWND!"
Shit-Stirrer said...
12 hours ago
No, it's not fair to group homosexuals in the same categories as animals, pedophiles, sex offenders, etc. I don't know what animals have to do with it, but homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone else, unless your religion tells you it does, but your religion probably also tells you not to judge others. I'm not saying anyone IS judging anyone else, just trying to make a point. There is always that point made about the spread of HIV/AIDS, and yes, I do admit that the rate is higher among gay males, they are not the only "type" of person to contract and spread it. Eliminating homosexuality is most likely not going to stop it. How, exactly, DO we eliminate homosexuality? Making it illegal is by no means going to put an end to it. Murder is illegal but I don't see the rate of it slowing down. The info. I gave on the incidences of homosexuality being a direct effect of sexual abuse stated that it isn't necessarily true. As of today, no one really knows WHAT causes homosexuality for sure so none of us can really say that it is because of one thing or another. We can speculate but we don't know.
Ok, this is going to sound really negative and really offensive to some people, but it's been eating away at me for several days and I have to say it. Keep in mind that my own husband is Catholic, so this isn't necessarily a direct insult to Catholicism. There have been many incidences where Catholic priests have sexually abused young boys. If the Catholic religion condemns homosexuality (not saying it does, because I'm not sure on that), wouldn't that be a direct form OF homosexuality? We also need to keep in my that the above cited book is almost 20 years old, and research has become much more advanced in that time.
Jestmeister said...
12 hours ago
Actually, Shit-Stirrer, it doesn't matter how old the book is, as it doesn't even relate to our topic. It's about pedophilia, and not about homosexuality. The study in question was conducted on a sampling of pedophiles, not a sampling of homosexuals.
Homosexual does not equal pedophile.
Maybe I could find a Mrs. [High School Teacher 2] or Mr. [High School Teacher 3] example to validate my claims...
Shit-Stirrer said...
11 hours ago
Well, since a pedophile is an adult whose primary sexual interest is in children, and a homosexual is a person who is sexually attracted to and/or has sex with someone of the same sex... I don't see the connection either. I'm quite sure there are homosexual pedophiles, but the two aren't related at all. I'm not sure what you mean by the [High School Teacher 3]/[High School Teacher 2] reference, did I miss out on something good back in high school? If you mean pedophile, the principal at the Middle School here is an excellent example, as he has been sleeping with high school girls for several years now. (He's in his 30s, and not homosexual).
Jestmeister said...
11 hours ago
Actually, the [High School Teacher 2]/[High School Teacher 3] reference was a display of my own brand of sardonic wit. It has no relevance.
Shit-Stirrer said...
11 hours ago
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I always wondered if [High School Teacher 3] and [High School Teacher 4] [both male] were lovers.
Jestmeister said...
11 hours ago
It has come to my attention that perhaps that last paragraph of the comment in which Mith Myopic quoted a book may have been her own opinion. Since it was included in the italics, I considered it to be an intended part of the preceding study.
It is still not a reasonable extrapolation from the cited passage. Earlier, Mith Myopic claimed that the link between homosexuality and child abuse was fact (still no reference for this claim).
"The fact part is that a majority of gay people have had some sort of traumatic experience or abuse in their past"
Now it has become a "possible connection".
"This unwillingness to seriously consider a possible connection between child sexual abuse and adult homosexuality"
I can't keep up with what her stance is on this. I have seriously considered it (as seriously as one can) and found no evidence to support it. I'm waiting for you to present some. The burden of proof lies with you.
"Non-religiously, if same sex can marry (which is a deviant behavior) then how long before children can marry, polygamy, maybe even animals. The problem with changing such huge, long lasting laws and precedents is the allowance of other deviant behaviors."
By this rational:
• Women should never have gotten the vote (or else we might have to give it to hamsters)
• Blacks should never have gained equal rights (or else we might have to give them to toasters)
Shit-Stirrer said...
10 hours ago
Oh Jestmeister.. I can't stop laughing. The main thing about these laws is that we don't have the authority to make them or change them. That's someone else's job.
Jestmeister said...
12 minutes ago
No, Shit-Stirrer, it IS our job.
If enough of us want it, our politicians will do it. You have to change the views of the everyday joe before the effect ripples enough to reach law makers.
Problem is, most of them apply the feelings that they were conditioned to have growing up to all of their decisions, and don't stop to consider what is actually the greater good.
That's why, earlier, I stated that I was wasting my time trying to convince Mith Myopic of anything. Instead, I've reserved myself to pointing out the falliability of her reasonings. If she wants to live in the corner, that's her business. She obviously needs to make bogus claims to get others to join her there, however. Unless, of course, they're already there, which, as stated before, is the majority.
One day, homosexuals will have equal rights, and people will stop discussing it. People who still obsess over it will be viewed in the same light as racists, for they are the civil rights opressors of our day.
Shit-Stirrer said...
I agree. But it's not our job unless we DO something about it and MAKE it our job, and no one here in our little Bebo world has done that yet... which is where I get irritated beyond belief when people bitch that the laws need to be changed, etc... change them then.
Mith Myopic said...
Ok, first of all, I have been trying to avoid "gay bashing"
Second of all, the first part in italics was from the study, the second part was the man's opinion who was citing the study.
Third of all-homosexuality is not and never will be condoned by the Catholic church.
4th- The reason you hear about SO MANY priests abusing altar boys is the same reason why you hear about SO MANY shark attacks. It is a sensational subject that all non-Catholics love to tout as yet another reason to be anti-Catholic. Does that make abuse ok, no, do I or anyone else condone these priests or think they should not be punished? No.
My point, including animals, is that when we open the door to gay marriage, when marriage has been and should always be between a man and a women, who knows what else will happen.
I was not trying to imply that other religions are murderous, however, I don't really care what you think I think about other religions.
So, it has come to my attention that as long as you are a liberal and "accept" everything, you are great and non-judgemental. The instant that someone sticks to their morals (ie no gay marriage) they (me) are judgemental, stuck in a corner, fallible (which, by the way, never said I was infallible).
Is this a nature v. nurture discussion or an attack Melissa discussion. BTW-I did not start the gay marriage is right or wrong thing, I simply listed my opinions. There do exist facts to support that many gay people were abused, however I guess I am not as proficient at google as others!
Ok, I am done, enjoy amusing yourself at my benefit, I am sure I have given you plenty of fodder.
Shit-Stirrer-sorry for hijacking your thread and changing the focus!
Jestmeister said
Personally, I don't view myself as a "liberal". However, there are people in the world that feel that they must be able to name and compartmentalize everything. My personal philsophy is, if someone is not harming themself or others, then there is no need to dictate what they can or can not do. Don't agree? Then, yes, you're being judgmental.
Mith Myopic, you say that you are sticking to your morals, yet you have given us no moral justification for your stance. I have done nothing but point out the ridiculous nature of many of your claims. The one source you gave was unrelated. You didn't even get it from the book, you cited it from somebody else's anti-gay tirade, which shows how little fact it takes to support a true believer.
I'm sure there are facts that support that many gay people were abused. That was not your initial claim. There are also facts that support that many heterosexuals were abused.
Thank you. You have probably helped more people see the light.
Shit-Stirrer
I'm not a liberal either. I don't consider myself to be anything because all sides have different aspects that I might agree with. I see no point in committing myself to one or the other. I'm not anti Catholic, my own husband is Catholic and at one time I was considering it myself. But no, not anymore and my husband doesn't agree with the religion either. That's our choice and nothing directly against you, as a Catholic. Yes, the issue is very sensational... a man of God sexually abusing young boys. OF COURSE it's going to be a big deal. "...marriage has been and should always be between a man and a women..." This is where people take you as being judgmental... you SOUND judgmental. You don't say, "I think" or "I believe", you say "It should" or "It can't happen".
I do not care if a man marries a woman, another man, his mother, whatever... it has no bearing on my own life, what I do, nothing to do with me, so I'm not going to make someone else's business my own.
Back on the subject of the priests, this is probably why so many people make such an issue of it and put the Catholic church down... it will never condone homosexuality, and states that this is wrong, or that is wrong, HOW do these priests even get the position they are in? Where are the strict regulations? Any man who molests a child or other adult of the same sex is exhibiting homosexual tendencies, so how can the Catholic church condemn something that so many of it's own "members" participate in?
Mith Myopic said...
This will be my last post. Apparently as long as it is my opinion, it is going to be judgemental, closeminded and wrong.
My personal philsophy is, if someone is not harming themself or others, then there is no need to dictate what they can or can not do. Don't agree? Then, yes, you're being judgmental.
No, I don't agree and that does not make me judgemental, that makes me free thinking.
My MORAL BACKGROUND is my religion. Natural law (not the pope or any other person) dictates that homosexuality is wrong. The church also condemns artificial birth control and sex before marriage. Lots of people do that too. That just does mean we kick them out of the church. Lots of people use illegal drugs and steal, does that mean we should just make it ok to do that, since lots of people do it?
I am finished, since apparently me having morals makes me judgemental.
You can bash me to your hearts content, I will not be back.
Shit-Stirrer said...
Look, I am not bashing you, or your religion, or your morals. I can't speak for everyone else on here, but I don't think they are either. There is a fine line between being judgmental and exercising your right to free speech. I didn't say that you WERE judgmental, I said it was coming across like you were. You are supposed to stick to your morals, but not everyone shares the same morals as you, and some people just don't even have any. Can anyone come up with any other reason besides religion that makes homosexuality wrong? We can't use religion as a general reason, because what if some people don't even believe in religion, or even in God, so that doesn't even apply to them and has no bearing on them at all. This gets so damn old, it has happened on about every blog lately, someone gets pissed off and is going to leave because someone else challenged their allegations. It's childish. No one disputed that anyone else's beliefs or morals were right or wrong, so let's get over it.
Jestmeister said...
"The church also condemns artificial birth control and sex before marriage."
Okay. Then the church shouldn't allow them to marry. After all, you deny it to one group, you've got to deny it to ALL of them.
"Lots of people use illegal drugs and steal, does that mean we should just make it ok to do that, since lots of people do it?"
Depends on the illegal drug, but generally not according to the principle I set forth earlier...
"if someone is not harming themself or others, then there is no need to dictate what they can or can not do."
Both of your examples show instances of people doing these things. Homosexuality doesn't.
Also, we apparantly differ on our definitions of free thinking. My idea of free thinking does not involve looking down on others because I was told to by an organization that cited their reasoning from a very old and oft translated and edited book.
Comments (1) Demannu - (<--- Eats Worms)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit Comment - Delete Comment
I had one of my slaves toast my bagel for beakfast this morning, while the other one made coffee. There is no way I'm giving them equal rights. I shouldn't have to pay them for the work they do. If God didn't want us to own appliances he wouldn't have given us Wal-Mart.
I better not catch them fucking each other though. THAT would be deviant, and I don't want to have to smell the stench of their kitchen counter love making on my breakfast.
Me:
Equal Rights for Toasters Now!
Comments (2)
![[Valid RSS]](themes/mario-world/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")