Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Spock]

...ty,,,,

[Rían]

I'm very happy to report this news: at the conference for those wishing to leave the homosexual lifestyle (and hold onto your hair, everyone! yes, of COURSE I realize that not all homosexuals are the same! but this refers specifically to lifestyle in terms of the context of the conversation, which means engaging in homosexual acts and the like - and YES, I would use the term "heterosexual lifestyle" in the exact same way!) (and THIS is why I had to come up with the word "urge" because of the IMO ridiculous stink over a simple term like "homosexual lifestyle", like anyone who uses that has some silly idea in their head that homosexuals are all exactly the same )

anyway...

at the conference for those wishing to leave the homosexual lifestyle (the one where the signs were defaced and the church where it was going to be held at was egged), there were some great things that happened, the coolest being how the two sides got along so well and had warm things to say about each other because they BOTH took the initiative to reach out to each other. Here's some excerpts:

More than 1,700 hear about hope for those struggling with same-sex attraction.

...

The event also drew a large crowd of protestors who marched in front of the church all day.

...

Gene Moniz, pastor of adult ministries at First Free, said, "....
I had many people walk up to me and thank me for hosting the conference," he said. "Outside the protestors were phenomenal. They were very respectful and cordial, and I spent a lot of our day outside just talking with them — not just trying to talk to them about our belief structure, but just to be there with them."

Moniz said the church tried to show the same love that was being shared inside.

"Several thanked us for treating them with dignity and respect," he said. "They were very gracious and very appreciative of the conversations that we had."

One topic brought up by the protestors was the vandalism that occurred in the weeks prior to the conference. The church was splattered with eggs, and two billboards placed by Exodus International, a group that assists those who want to leave homosexuality, were hit with paint.

"One gentleman said as soon as he heard about the egging of the church, he sent out a mass e-mail and said 'I don't know who did this but knock it off, this is unacceptable behavior,' " Moniz said.

Two women protesters told him they had tried to get to the defaced billboards to clean them off.

"And because it was Mardi Gras here in St. Louis, they also said 'We just want you to know, we are policing ourselves to make sure no one comes in here drunk and makes a scene,' " Moniz added.

He said some local news reports that mistakenly claimed the faith community would not accept homosexuals unless they changed were not accurate.

"If I had a complaint, it's that things were said that just weren't true — like the message on the inside was 'We love and accept you if you become straight,' " he said. "That's just not true."

He said the message was simply that there is hope for those who are struggling and want out.

....

Not all activists left with the wrong impression, he said. After the conference, Moniz received e-mails from two women with Love Needs No Cure — a group that joined the protest.

"I wanted to write you a brief note to say thank you for the respect and courtesy you had for us today during our Love Needs No Cure action," one wrote. "The doughnuts, port-a-johns and lunches were very much appreciated. I thought we had constructive conversations today and welcome the opportunity to continue our discussions under better circumstances."

A second e-mail confirmed the sentiments.

"I certainly echo (her) words," read the note. "We will try hard to get this desperate group of folks together and hopefully be able to meet and open that dialogue you've requested. Again, thank you for your hospitality."

Moniz said those two women and many others were beginning to understand the message of Love Won Out.

"They wanted to have a dialogue," he said, "because we communicated love to them, and they understood we really did care."

I like how the conference organizers provided donuts, lunches and portapotties for the protesters, and how the protesters thanked them, and how some of the protesters sent out emails encouraging people to stop the vandalism and two women even tried to clean the billboards!

Now isn't that better than namecalling?


and here's the link:

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039675.cfm

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

I have to agree, concerning the term gay.

Here's a totally random thought - why, since there is a perfectly good term to describe a woman who is sexually attracted to women (i.e., "lesbian"), isn't there a corresponding term for men? That really leaves us with the very awkward "male homosexual", or the slang "gay" (which could also mean women). [/random thought]

I think the worst part is that perfectly nice people use it as an insult without even thinking about what they're actually saying, even after you've told them that you find it offensive.

I was just telling my kids yesterday, in the car on the way home from school (where lots of teaching takes place, btw) to not use that term as an insult - they had been hearing kids at school using it as a insult.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

But you use the word "urge" over and over again, in order to (I can only surmise) label non-heterosexuality as a whole.

But I just answered you that I consider them the same - was that not clear?

You asked, "Is being heterosexual an urge, do you think?"

and I answered, "in the same way as being homosexual or bisexual, yes, I think it is. Or to put it another way, I think that the desire for homosexual or bisexual expression is just as real as the desire for heterosexual expression."

I hope it's very clear now. So no, I'm not trying to "label non-heterosexuality as a whole" at ALL as different in the sense of urges and how they often drive actions.

And now I remember why the whole "urge" thing even came up - it's because of the strong (and IMO rather silly) reaction against the use of "homosexual lifestyle", like people think all homosexuals are identical or something . I'd use "heterosexual lifestyle" just as easily if I was talking about heterosexual urges and actions. But to try to cut down on the objections that usually crop up when using "homosexual lifestyle", I tried to come up with another term.

So, homosexuality and bisexuality ought to be just as much an inborn trait as is being born heterosexual.

To me, it's irrelevant if it's inborn or not. I could go with either. It doesn't matter to my argument. I'm even willing to grant that it's inborn for argument's sake, just like I have inborn traits in many areas.

The question is, should a person give in to ALL their inborn traits, or some, or what? I think that NONE of us here would say that we should give into ALL of our inborn traits (for example, my inborn trait to be lazy). Do you think we should? Or just "certain" ones, as IRex suggests? Then who defines which "certain" ones we should give into? So why not just have everyone make their OWN decision about which traits they think is good and right to give into, and which they should strive against? What do you (and everyone else, btw) think about that?

You don't feel an "urge" to be with your husband, or a male, right?

Sure I do! At least the way I'm using the term.

It is no more an urge than it is an urge to be born blonde, but if you were born blonde and society around you insisted it was the "right and normal way" to want to be or strive to be brunette, and there were clubs and focus-groups that helped you in your decision to renounce your blonde-ness and become the right-way brunette, well... is that right?

Being blonde doesn't come out as an action, right? (the blonde joke makers may disagree ) I think there are traits that come out in actions, like sexuality. And there are traits that do NOT drive action, like having freckles ("oh, look, he's acting freckly!" "Oh, I'm having freckle urges!")

[Lief Erikson]

I don't know if I'll continue posting here in the immediate. I'll come back eventually for sure, but I need a break.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by rian

And there are traits that do NOT drive action, like having freckles ("oh, look, he's acting freckly!" "Oh, I'm having freckle urges!")

don't make me laugh!! i am trying to do my coursework - i don't think my sociology lecturer will appreciate halfway though my study on educational achievements and gender 'oh and having freckles mean you place a higher value on educational achievement'

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

To me, it's irrelevant if it's inborn or not.

The Nature vs. Nurture argument has been largely discredited in regards to behaviors anyway. We've been getting taught that complex behaviors are products of Nature and Nurture which really makes much more sense.

In answer to your random thought:

We've got the word lesbian in memory of Sappho (hurrah for the female, homoerotic poet of ancient greece!), and her home island of Lesbos.

Presumably we don't have a similar name for male homosexuals because Sappho's male counterparts lived all over the place.

And this is what having greek history and psychology on the same day does to one's arguments...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

First I'd like to say that nothing is black & white. You can't always divide people into groups by their sexual orientation. There will be grey areas between hetero- and homosexual, as well as between homo- and bisexual. No clear lines can ever be defined.

I don't know enough, but I suspect you're right.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I adress this mainly to the Christian posters in this thread, since it seems to me that they've been very quick regard these various sexual orientations as clearly defined groups. A homosexual person who shows some slight interest in the same sex does not necessarily make him heterosexual or even bisexual.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I believe there are studies that show it is likely that genetics can't be the single contributor to homosexuality. That is not to say "there is a good deal of evidence" that homosexuality is not inheritable. The word "evidence" should be used with consideration and I hardly believe such evidence exists. Lief, I think you might have confused evidence with study results. Evidence can be the result of studies but studies do not always (relatively seldom, I'd say) result in clear evidence.

Studies, unless demonstrated to be invalid or insufficient for some reason, are a valid form of evidence. I presented a link to 31 studies, many of which show changes in people's sexual desire in addition to change in behavior. 31 studies. That a high proportion of people can change (30-50% of people changed when going through these programs, according to Exodus International) indicates that genetics is not involved, for genetics is permanent. It can't be changed. Desires that come from genes are not going to change due to any program, yet since change in desire is apparent, so desire does not come from genes.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I think it is very probable that such a complex thing like sexual orientation is not ruled solely by genes - the environment is likely to influence a lot as well.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

As of today we simply do not know how much our genes are involved

Agreed. I know that scientific experiments on the subject have still been highly inconclusive, and that only goes to further show that sexuality is a highly complex matter.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

nor do we know how capable the environment is to influence our sexual preferation.

Though there are often noticeable trends in family lifestyles that exist in the vast majority of homosexuals, according to Exodus International. Abuse and poor relationships with parents are common among homosexuals.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

There are studies that suggest that genes are involved

I don't doubt you, but I'd be interested in seeing their credentials.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

Well perhaps both are involved.

Maybe. If it's possible for genes to change, maybe .

Originally Posted by Jonathon

Anyway, it would take one hell of a study to definitely prove anything, to lay forth actual evidence.

Studies don't have to prove in order to be evidence. Studies are evidence, weak or strong depending upon the level of research done, the methodology, etc.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

And maybe it doesn't really matter whether evidence shows homosexuality is genetic. We can never make such a generalization. There will always be fluctuations. If homosexuality were in most cases genetic, there would still be some persons who would be gay despite their "heterosexual" heritage, persons who you can't just ignore. Fluctuations can really "screw up" a scientific study but they always have to be taken into consideration when you present your results.

But you would be able to make general statements about the vast majority, and that would be important.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

It sounds natural to me that individual bisexuals are inclined towards one gender or the other. However, if half of the bisexual "community" sway toward men and the other half toward women, the average bisexual person wouldn't be inclined toward any gender at all. And there's no such thing as the average person, he/she does not exist

The nonexistant average bisexual person would be evenly inclined toward both genders, not toward neither, I should think.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

You can't get away from the gaps of logic. They're always there, no matter if you're discussing abortion, the war in Iraq or intelligent design. These gaps of logic can be heard from BOTH sides in any discussion and this thread is no exception.

I certainly wouldn't argue that I'm flawless . I expect both sides do make some mistakes, but that doesn't mean both sides are wrong in their main points .


Thanks for a great response, Jonathon . I'm afraid I'm going onto break from this thread for a while, so I won't have much more to offer until I return.

I wish you all a good discussion.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

Though there are often noticeable trends in family lifestyles that exist in the vast majority of homosexuals, according to Exodus International. Abuse and poor relationships with parents are common among homosexuals.

But are the abuse and poor relationships with parents a cause of the person's homosexuality or the result of the parents knowing about it and disapproving?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i dont ever rcall any abuse in my life, not till after i came out, and that was the cause of said abuse, not the result of it...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

But are the abuse and poor relationships with parents a cause of the person's homosexuality or the result of the parents knowing about it and disapproving?

It would be a sweeping generalization to say that the abuse and poor relationships would always be the cause.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

That's why I was questioning the trends showing abuse and poor relationships as evidence of environmental influence. It would be a sweeping generalization, and it's one that confuses corellation with causation.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

That's why I was questioning the trends showing abuse and poor relationships as evidence of environmental influence. It would be a sweeping generalization, and it's one that confuses corellation with causation.

I don't think that Exodus International would have mentioned these as evidence of the environmental influence if they were a result of people's homosexuality. This is a professional organization, you know.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

But still fallible. Even professionals can get confused, or jump to conclusions. I would take that piece of evidence with a grain of salt, that's all.

[Lief Erikson]

Believe that, if you will .

(Goes on a cruiseboat to Atharon)

VACATION!!! From this thread . Not that it's an annoyance, of course; I love the discussion. It's just my head is worn out. See you all later .

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't think that Exodus International would have mentioned these as evidence of the environmental influence if they were a result of people's homosexuality. This is a professional organization, you know.

Calling Exodus International a professional organization is grossly inaccurate. It is a lobby (and it might or might not qualify as a religious or pseudo-religious organization), but it does not adhere to any professional standars

[The Wizard from Milan]

All this discussion of whether it is "nature or nurture", "can people change, or not" is often used a veiled way to enforce prejudice. Of course, there is nothing wrong in asking oneself these questions per se, but I am concerned when these questions are brought up by people who would not declare that all orientations are eqully ethically good, and all orientations are to be celebrated, and all orientation are to be awarded equal dignity and equal rights.

As I have said in the past, it is not that much about this or that specific question, it is about the purity of the heart of the person who asks the questions

[Rían]

I agree that a person's heart is very important, but I'd be interested to see your opinion of how a person's heart should be judged.

Do you really think ALL orientations are to be celebrated and ALL orientations are equally ethically good and deserve equal dignity and equal rights? I know of groups like NAMBLA (north american man/boy love association) that think man/boy sex is fine and healthy. IYO, do you think their orientation should be celebrated? How about the traditional Mormons, who think group marriage is fine? Do you really mean "ALL", or do you mean those that you, personally, think are fine, or perhaps something else?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree that a person's heart is very important, but I'd be interested to see your opinion of how a person's heart should be judged.

Do you really think ALL orientations are to be celebrated and ALL orientations are equally ethically good and deserve equal dignity and equal rights? I know of groups like NAMBLA (north american man/boy love association) that think man/boy sex is fine and healthy. IYO, do you think their orientation should be celebrated? How about the traditional Mormons, who think group marriage is fine? Do you really mean "ALL", or do you mean those that you, personally, think are fine, or perhaps something else?

Your second paragaph is very legittimate, and I thank you because it gives me the the opportunity to clarify something really imporatant important.
I do not classify pedofilia as an orientation. I think pedofilia is a crime and heinously immoral. I truly believe that a lot of children go through tremendous abuse while growing up (not necessarily sexual) and I think that that is inexcusable.
I don't think polygamy is an orientation (although one day science might prove me wrong, who knows) but I think that polygamy should have all the same rights (etc., etc.) of couples.

So Rian you are right in asking me to qualify what do I mean with "all orientations". I could have been more restrictive and said "hetero, homo, bi" as well as gender characteristics and expressions. The reason why I did not do the list is because variations of the gender and sexuality spectra are individuating on a frequent basis and I want to be inclusive of all these variations that at the moment I am not thinking of.

[The last sane person]

Hahhha. the first time I heard about NAMBLA was in South Park. At first I thought it was a spoof! Then I was sickened to find out that, holy crap! Its real!