Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Hats off to IR for calling a spade a spade.

I could very well point out, in a dispassionate and academic manner, that men of african origin have a higher rate of prostate cancer, or that mountaineers have a higher rate of calling in the goddam air ambulance than the rest of the population and therefore they are a burden on the rest of us.

But the real point, and one that I'm disappointed you don't seem to get behind, Rian, is that gays are the way they are, there is value in who they are and how they love, in and of themselves just like everybody else, and they have a RIGHT to express themselves sexually.

This is particularly the case when one starts from a first principle of equality. Were this NOT the case, the implication is that we do not have equality between people of different sexual orientation and therefore we have grounds to discriminate against them.

The purpose of all this unseemly data trawling and spin is to undermine that essential proposition of equality, and that's why it's homophobic.

SO well said.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Gosh I guess we all imagined that she posted in here... wonder how that happened...

you can mention oral sex, but you can't admit to liking it

[Rían]

Where did her post go? Did an admin take it out??

[inked]

Well, quite a number of responses since I could check in.

I'm not gay-bashing. However, it seems that any mention of the data about the medical realities of sexual practices which are frankly acknowledged by the various "-blade" sources, the CDC, et cetera, are BY COMMON DEFAULT CONSENSUS here regarded as gay bashing. I have never used any of the phrases which IR in his infinite mind-link KNOWS that I am thinking.

I will not surrender to allegations of what I have not done. Nor will I stop referring to the data. It is not merely prophets who are without honor for speaking the truth it would seem, but any who would point out that specific sexual activities are the source of specific disease transmission modalities, eg doctors, sexual health educators, nurses, etc. One must paint with a very wide brush to get all such to be "gay-bashers". And, on that ground, I should be equally characterized as "heterosexual basher".

I repeat for the umpteenth time that there is NO EVIDENCE of a gay gene as an explanation of origins of alleged homosexual orientation, in fact, quite the contrary:

"...Bailey’s most recent identical twin study, one that made use of the Australian Twin Register (p. 404; Bailey et al., “Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample,� Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 [2000]: 524-36)... found that nearly nine out of ten times when an identical twin self-identified as non-heterosexual the co-twin self-identified as heterosexual. Bailey notes that this study “did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors for that trait� and that “concordances from prior studies were inflated due to concordance dependent ascertainment bias.� ... (And) the twin study by P. A. Bearman of Columbia University and H. Brückner of Yale University (“Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,� American Journal of Sociology 107 [2002]: 1179-1205). The study found no significant difference in concordance rates for non-heterosexuality among identical twin pairs (6.7%) and fraternal twin pairs (7.2%), even though the latter are no more genetically ‘identical’ than non-twin siblings. Moreover, they found that opposite-sex twins were twice as likely to report same-sex attraction as same-sex twins; and that males without older brothers among opposite-sex twins were twice as likely to report same-sex attraction (18.7%) than their male counterparts with older brothers (8.8%). Bearman and Brückner concluded that “less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences."

And,

"Despite common assertions to the contrary, evidence for biological causation does not have clear moral, legal, or policy consequences. To assume that it does logically requires the belief that some behaviour is non-biologically caused. We believe that this assumption is irrational because the most proximal cause of behaviour is neurophysiological, and thus all behavioural differences will on some level be attributable to differences in brain structure or process. Thus, no clear conclusions about the morality of a behaviour can be made from the mere fact of biological causation, because all behaviour is biologically caused. (B. S. Mustanski and J. M. Bailey, “A therapist’s guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation,� Sexual and Relationship Therapy 18:4, 2003, p. 432) ."

Thus, heterosexual and homosexual behaviours are not morally, legally, or socially judged in those spheres by mere biological "causality" at any rate, as the discussions here demonstrate. Other factors clearly are involved in those judgments calls on either side of pro-homo or pro-hetero actions and consequences. I have NOT made any assertions about any other than medical consequences to defined actions, associated risks, and the suggestion of behaviour modification in the light of the data.

None of that is gay bashing, folks. Just apparently very unpopular.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm not going to put words in anyone's mouth here.

thank you thank you thank you!!
I'm glad to see you back, esp. in threads like this, because you do NOT put words in anyone's mouth!

But I agree with this point, paraphrased: You demonstrate that anal sex is risky, now what are you going to do about it?

I don't think anyone is saying that anal sex isn't risky, what some people are saying is, now that we know anal sex is risky, what do you propose we do?

I have a few ideas (I think I posted them earlier in this thread - maybe even in its first incarnation), but I'll put it to RÃ*an and Inked first: what do you guys propose?

To answer your question about what do you think we should do -
Here's what I propose that homosexuals do - do what you think is right.
Here's what I propose that heterosexuals do - do what you think is right.
Here's what I think everyone should do - do what you think is right.
Vote how you think is right, act how you think is right - but don't tell me to NOT do those things!

I don't care what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, but when it comes OUT of the home, then I have every right to respond to it if and when it starts to affect society (which I am part of). And that's why I will continue to vote that I think marriage should be between one man and one woman, as it has been defined in this country for hundreds of years, because IMO, that is what is best for everyone. Just because it's been a certain way for hundreds of years doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make it wrong; take attitudes about murder, for example.

So in general, I think people need to do what they think is right. Even if I heartily disagree with someone, still, I think when it comes down to decision time, that they should do what THEY think is right. Sounds pretty liberal to me! yet some of the "liberals" here seem to not want to tell ME that. They want to say there is no absolute truth, but somehow I'm wrong. Go figure ... I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

As far as I can remember, this latest thing started when someone (don't recall who) said something like homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals, and there's no increased risk of disease in homosexuals -something along those lines. That's when inked started providing DATA, and from ALL types of sources - GLB sources included - showing that anal sex (to chose one thing) is riskier in terms of transmission of disease, and that a higher percentage of gay men engaged in anal sex than did heterosexual men. Seems extremely clear, then, that at least among gay men, there is a higher risk for homosexual behavior. No moral judgements - just simple data showing a fact. No big deal.

Or at least it shouldn't be a big deal

Then we got into the whole thing of "what is homosexual behavior"? and that homosexuals are just like everyone else. Personally, I agree, as I've posted before, and just recently posted again, except in the area of - guess what? - homosexuality. That's why there's a word for it! Again, shouldn't be a big deal - but it was. Homosexuals prefer homosexual sex. We're not talking rocket science here! And yet there's a huge foot-dragging thing going on over a simple term like homosexual behavior!

Now I can see how this could be in reaction to people who (wrongly) think all homosexuals are the same in ALL areas. But that's not the case here, and that's why I am such a stickler about not putting words (or thoughts) in other people's mouths (or heads)!!!!!!!

The reason I'm putting this question to RÃ*an and Inked is because, due to your posts in this thread, you seem to think that anal sex (which is the type of sex most frequently practiced by gay men) is a bad idea. If you do not think it's a bad idea, then never mind. But if you do think it's a bad idea, what do you propose people do to mitigate the risks?

As far as the risks - I think most people are aware of the risks, and choose to engage in anal sex anyway. That's their business. Where it becomes MY business is when it gets outside the bedroom - literally and otherwise.

I think anal sex is a bad idea, yes. But I don't think it's a bad idea because it's risky - I think it's risky because it's a bad idea.

I don't think anal sex should be outlawed, if that's what you're getting at. I think people that want to do it are going to do it, and that's their business, if it stays in the bedroom. But I also think that in groups of people where this behavior happens at a high percentage (for example, gay men), that information should be made available, and maybe some might take more precautions, because a person's health affects the society they live in. Apparently many homosexuals agree with me, because in places like San Francisco (where there is a HUGE gay population), many gay bars have info posted about these risks. Yet no one calls THEM gay-bashers for putting this info in gay bars.

I have NO problem with homosexuals, and I resent implications that I do I do happen to think that in one area of their lives, they are making wrong choices, but I'm sure they think that about me, too. I have no ill feeling towards gays AT ALL - they are people, just like I am.

We ALL have opinions on what we think is right and wrong. Personally, I'm tired of being bashed for my opinion, especially when the people that do the bashing will say over and over on other threads that there is no absolute right or wrong, anyway!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Hats off to IR for calling a spade a spade.

Please provide quotes where inked says the things IRex says he said, and please provide scientific proof that IRex can read inked's mind.

I could very well point out, in a dispassionate and academic manner, that men of african origin have a higher rate of prostate cancer, or that mountaineers have a higher rate of calling in the goddam air ambulance than the rest of the population and therefore they are a burden on the rest of us.

If they call in the air ambulance often enough, I'm sure they'll start to get billed! Kind of like with fire alarms - you get a couple of freebies, then you start paying! That's a behavior, and if it happens often enough, then they should pay for it.
Being of African origin is not a behavior.
Where are you getting that someone said gays are a burden on us?

But the real point, and one that I'm disappointed you don't seem to get behind, Rian, is that gays are the way they are, there is value in who they are and how they love, in and of themselves just like everybody else, and they have a RIGHT to express themselves sexually.

Haven't I said over and over that I think they're people just like the rest of us? We're ALL people, and we're ALL very valuable, IMO. ALL of us. In fact, I imagine I'm more liberal than most people here, because I even see value in pedophiles. I think they're horribly wrong, and they need to be locked up to ensure the safety of children, but I see value in them, and I think they are people just like the rest of us. Can you say the same? If not, looks like I'm the liberal one!

Does everyone have the RIGHT to express themselves sexually in any way they want to? I don't think you'd agree to that. All it comes down to is that we agree about most of the ways that people express themselves sexually except this one thing. And as I've said, I don't think it should be illegal, and I think they (and everyone) should do what they think is right. But if it comes to a society vote about things like marriage, I'll get out there and vote for what I think is best for society. And if there is a gay man standing next to me, then I"ll encourage HIM to vote for what HE thinks is best for society. But would he do that for me? Would you? Who's the more liberal here, anyway?

And if you define "liberal" as removing restrictions, then why stop at homosexual marriage? Why not remove ALL restrictions? The simple reason is that YOU have YOUR opinions on what you think is right, and so do I. And both of us have good hearts, and want what is best for everyone concerned. We just have different opinions on what this involves.

This is particularly the case when one starts from a first principle of equality. Were this NOT the case, the implication is that we do not have equality between people of different sexual orientation and therefore we have grounds to discriminate against them.

The purpose of all this unseemly data trawling and spin is to undermine that essential proposition of equality, and that's why it's homophobic.

Let me repeat - I think all people are created equal! But I think we all have different OPINIONS on what is best for society. And if a group of people want to express their sexuality by group sex, then go for it! But if they bring it to a vote and want the definition of marriage to include group marriages, then by golly I'll vote against it. I'm not "groupsexophobic", and I don't think these people are somehow less than me; I just disagree that group marriage is good for society.

I feel exactly the same way about homosexuality. If some people want to express their sexuality by engaging in homosexual sex, then go for it! But if they bring it to a vote and want the definition of marriage to include homosexual marriages, then by golly I'll vote against it. I'm not "homophobic", and I don't think these people are somehow less than me; I just disagree that group marriage is good for society.

And if someone says, "oh, homosexual sex is not any more risky than heterosexual sex", then I'll point them to data that proves that wrong. I'm not homophobic, but it seems like some here are dataphobic, if it doesn't support their opinion.

[The Wizard from Milan]

I see that you do not reply to my last post.

Originally Posted by inked

I'm not gay-bashing. However, it seems that any mention of the data about the medical realities of sexual practices which are frankly acknowledged by the various "-blade" sources, the CDC, et cetera, are BY COMMON DEFAULT CONSENSUS here regarded as gay bashing.

I don't know what you are talking about because I don't bother to read what you link. I would read it, if you were to summarize succintly. But what I object to is not the specific data here or there (many of which are probably wrong, but that's not the point), it is that you collate disparate pieces with the intent of shaming and demeaning LGBT people without recognizing the validitiy and moral justness of our lives, essences, choices (yes, also choices), and relationships.

Originally Posted by inked

I will not surrender to allegations of what I have not done.

Yet, it would be nice if you recognized your prejudice, that is much uglier than anything that has been attributed to you so far.

Originally Posted by inked

I repeat for the umpteenth time that there is NO EVIDENCE of a gay gene as an explanation of origins of alleged homosexual orientation, in fact, quite the contrary

But I agree that there is no simplistic "one gay gene" explanation. I have been aware of this for years and years and I have already posted it several times. I know personally identical twins, one of which is gay and the other straight.
I have said that what LGBT people experience is that they feel they orientation as hard-wired, as if it were genetic, like their height. That is not the same as saing that it is genetic, but people's feelings also have their importance. There is more than because the vastest majority or the totality of LGB people actually cannot change their orientation (it is still up in the air whether there is a tiny minority that can).
Although I feel my orientation to be hard-wired and definitely not a choice; I don't care at all about the origin of my orientation. I DEMAND equal dignity for my orientation REGARDLESS for its origin. My orientation does not impact thrid parties and therefore belongs to the sphere in which I am ENTITLED to equal dignity.

The day that you will recognize that my sexual acts and my relationships are morally equal to the heterosexual ones, then I will listen to your advice on behavior (I already listen to medical advice on behavior, I just choose as my sources ethically sound sources)

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Where did her post go? Did an admin take it out??

Apparently. Do they no longer even bother to tell you that they're mangling your posts now? They just out and out delete them? Who's the delete-happy mod? I've got a grade A wedgie to give 'em. :grumpy:

Nice to see you too, Sharon. *waves*

Anyway, somewhat on topic... My co-worker/friend is in a committed lesbian relationship, has been now for a number of years. My other coworker has been in a committed gay relationship for 20 years. I think the odds of them getting 'nasties' is fairly low. Also, what are the thoughts on heterosexuals who practice fudge-packing? Is it also wrong for them?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

We ALL have opinions on what we think is right and wrong. Personally, I'm tired of being bashed for my opinion, especially when the people that do the bashing will say over and over on other threads that there is no absolute right or wrong, anyway!

i believe i am the one that says "there is no absolute right or wrong" and i've never bashed anyone at the 'moot (other than a bit of friendly ribbing )

on inked's obsession with AIDs data... i never claimed homosexual males are not higher-risk when it comes to things like AIDs as an entire population... all i did was try to point out (as i always do) that it is bad to project statistics onto an entire population... being homosexual is not dangerous individually (i personally know a few lifelong, faithful homosexual couples)... certain homosexual practices are

and whether or not there is a homosexual gene is irrelavent... there have always been and always will be homosexuals... and the real question is what kind of treatment by society (us) will lead to a safer environment

in my opinion, villifying gays (which is what one does when all they post about is negatives, factual or not) does not lead to a safer environment, but instead alienates the very population you are trying to help and makes it even more likely that they won't pay attention to anything you say anymore, even the valid points

confrontation is not a productive method of getting a point across... as your statement that you feel like you are always being "bashed" illustrates

[inked]

I see, BJ. I don't actually have to say anything villifying gays to be ATTRIBUTED to have done so. Anything that can be regarded as villifying will be taken as such regardless of data, statistics, or reality.

So glad to hear that you at least acknowledge your understanding of ANIMAL FARM.

To the point, posting data about medical risks is that. It is not villifying. It is not negative. It is data.

Bet you even quote data to cigarette smokers who light up next to ya', don't ya'? Do they typically jump your case for villifying them? Or, do you feel superior since you understand the risks and don't engage in the behaviour? Do you think banning smoking is the answer to the known risks? Why shouldn't people be allowed to smoke in public places such as government buildings and restuarants? Could it be their private behaviour has public consequences you don't approve of?

What's the diff? Unless you think homosexuals are NEEDING to be SPECIALLY PROTECTED from reality? Why?

I plan to continue treating them as adults. How they feel about the data is their problem. What they do with it is their problem. In actuality, it is the same way I treat heterosexuals. Why should I specially privilege 1%-3% of the population?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

I see, BJ. I don't actually have to say anything villifying gays to be ATTRIBUTED to have done so. Anything that can be regarded as villifying will be taken as such regardless of data, statistics, or reality.

it's a matter of quantity... not quality (and i don't think you are unaware of this... righteous indignation aside )

it's much like the difference between CNN and FOX news... both present factual news stories, but what they choose to present a majority of the time, or what context they decide to present a certain piece of data in, is what makes people rightly define one as "conservative" and the other as "liberal"

on the rest, you can say whatever you like... the more differing opinions on such a controversial subject the better... i do not hold it against you, i just try to offer different ways to look at the data you present

either way, it's all good... each and every reader here will make their own decisions based on what they agree with

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

I repeat for the umpteenth time that there is NO EVIDENCE of a gay gene as an explanation of origins of alleged homosexual orientation, in fact, quite the contrary

This is being purposefully simplistic to dodge the fact that there is PLENTY of evidence of a genetic basis to sexual orientation. Why in this very thread alone weve had a good 4 or 5 posts of articles showing studies that make it seem genetics do indeed play a role in sexual orientation. So where in the world do you get off saying “no evidence�? If you are talking strictly about a "gay gene" then you are being misleading because thats useless terminology. You know as well as I the complexity involved in such a thing likely goes beyond one simple gene. In fact theres some evidence showing that certain environmental factors may turn on the genetic predisposition.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Anyway, somewhat on topic... My co-worker/friend is in a committed lesbian relationship, has been now for a number of years. My other coworker has been in a committed gay relationship for 20 years. I think the odds of them getting 'nasties' is fairly low.

I would agree - I'm glad for them

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i believe i am the one that says "there is no absolute right or wrong" and i've never bashed anyone at the 'moot (other than a bit of friendly ribbing )

No, you haven't bashed anyone, and I've always appreciated your thoughtful and kind posts

... all i did was try to point out (as i always do) that it is bad to project statistics onto an entire population...

Do you think they're wrong in San Francisco to target gay bars with info about the higher risks of anal sex? Is that projecting statistics onto entire populations in a bad way?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it's a matter of quantity... not quality (and i don't think you are unaware of this... righteous indignation aside )

it's much like the difference between CNN and FOX news... both present factual news stories, but what they choose to present a majority of the time, or what context they decide to present a certain piece of data in, is what makes people rightly define one as "conservative" and the other as "liberal"

But please remember the thread topic, and please remember his posts are in response to questions, and as a doctor, he has better access to studies than many of us.

And if people hadn't objected to the first bunch of data he presented, then he wouldn't have had to present more.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But please remember the thread topic, and please remember his posts are in response to questions, and as a doctor, he has better access to studies than many of us.

And if people hadn't objected to the first bunch of data he presented, then he wouldn't have had to present more.

response to questions, eh?

and what questions were those?

i refer you to inked's post which bumped this thread after three months of nothing (and before that the discussion was about gay marriage, not the health angle)

#307

but i'm sure he was just answering some question from last february

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And I defy IRex to prove inked thinks those things. I don't think people have the right to say in such a definitive manner that someone is thinking something, when they have never said it.

Gee youre right. He just posts as if he thinks those things. Logic would dictate that he actually thinks the opposite then right?

[Rían]

I don't think he thinks those things, and I've read the same posts that you have. Since you think he thinks a certain way, and I think he thinks a certain way, and what you think he thinks doesn't match what I think he thinks, then one of us (or both of us) is/are wrong, so I think we should let inked say what he thinks he thinks, don't you think so?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

response to questions, eh?

and what questions were those?

Oh, I don't remember where the questions were anymore, but there were certainly questions about health risks of various groups of people.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Oh, I don't remember where the questions were anymore, but there were certainly questions about health risks of various groups of people.

they started right after he posted the article