|
[ Sex Questions Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
Walt, I read your book yesterday, and found that you think I'm promiscuous because I'm gay (page 86).
You link the stressful lifestyle of "gays" to a high incidence of AIDS. I can tell you, it isn't my "lifestyle" that is stressful, it is homophobic health care providers like you that are stressful.
After reading your book I did a search on the archives and came up with this lovely quote:
"cysteine and zinc deficiency may be a factor in the predisposition to homosexuality. If persons with this predisposition were treated with cysteine and zinc they may improve and become heterosexual." (posted by Ann on November 08, 1998 at 00:00:03)
You replied to her in the heartiest terms (November 09, 1998 at 11:36:27).
Walt, you want to revolutionise the health care system, but it sounds to me that your post-revolutionary system will be just another homophobic institution. Count me out.
Beth
In Reply to: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Beth [1458.1056] on April 28, 2004 at 04:07:15:
Walt, I have friends who are gay who are in long-term, stable relationships. I doubt whether they are deficient in any minerals. They're glowingly healthy.
Of one couple, one is an environmental lawyer and one a prize-winning feature film director. Why would you wish them to change? They have many friends and are making a great contribution to their circle and society at large. Did you really make that statement?
It's illegal to vilify gays in my country.
Jane
In Reply to: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Beth [1458.1056] on April 28, 2004 at 04:07:15:
You have to remember the book(s) are opinion - nothing else. Like anything else, glean what you can and toss the rest aside. :)
In Reply to: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Beth [1458.1056] on April 28, 2004 at 04:07:15:
That statement is from a holistic paper quoted in the book and it does not say who wrote it. It is from a period prior to 1985 and it is about the cause of, and solution to, AIDS.
Why not ask Walt what HIS views are, how much he supported everything that was in that paper, and if his views have changed in the past 24 years?
In Reply to: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Beth [1458.1056] on April 28, 2004 at 04:07:15:
First of all, statistically, gay men are more promiscuous. The same doesn't hold true for gay women. So what Walt said was not only correct but scientific, not homophobic. And his point about a gay lifestyle being stressful didn't say it was just from BEING gay. However, as you noted, that lifestlye IS stressfull because of all the prejudice.
It's important to point out that the quote you found is from "Ann". And not from Walt, as Jane and I'm sure many others have misread it.
Then regarding Walt's reply to Ann's lengthy post which did contain that one remark, I don't see anything that agreed with her statment or even remotely addressed homosexuality.
I posted his reply below so that everyone can clearly see you are just fishing for an argument that doesn't exist.
And for the record, before you jump down my throat, I could care less whether someone is gay or straight. People are people.
---------------------Walt's post.
Thanks, Ann.
As a founding member of the American Holistic Medical Association (more than 20 years ago) I served on their Board of Trustees for many years. In 1985 I waas given the honor of being the national spokesman for the group on the subject of the cause (and most effective approach to prevention & treatment) of AIDS. My paper was published in one of their 1985 newsletters. Exerpts of that paper were copied into my book for the chapter about AIDS. The statements & references therein are now being proven correct.
Already, at that time, most researchers were saying that only people with a compromised immune system could "get" AIDS. The reason AIDS had captured our attention (instead of the already new disease of the month phenomenon--at that time) was that it was the only one that directly attacked the immune system----our last line of defence against ALL the fatal disease humans are heir to.
The problem was that the solution was not going to make any big bucks for the pharmaceutical companies, OR the docs. The solution then, and still now, is for people to get serious about wellness & maintain a high degree of immunity. A healthy person cannot "get" AIDS.
There is an international AIDS patients' organization (has been formed for nearly 15 years now) that has shown that the very best approach to AIDS and positive HIV status is "wellness". They have the very best statistics of ANY treatment and it is free.
Finally, last month, there were wire-service articles in all the newspapers that: " the medical profession now thinks that there will never be a 'cure' for AIDS". The entire medical/pharmaceutical complex has been struggling on the hook for all those years hoping against hope that SOMEBODY was going to make a LOT of money over this tragedy. How many billions of dollars in research and how many millions of deaths do we have to endure until they begin looking at the facts and start teaching people about wellness?
The facts will make you free. It is already known how to approach this most effectively--and has been known of more than 15 years. How much longer?
I am sure you can see that you have pushed one of my buttons once again.
Just as Pasteur (on his deathbed) said: "the territory (human immunity) is more important than the germ after all".
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by DrDave [1460.109] on April 28, 2004 at 07:28:52:
To add more....
In reality, in general ALL young males are more apt to be loose sexually - therefore the only reason gay men are statistically more promiscuous as opposed to gay women, is that you have two person with high testosterone levels instead of one - as in a hetero relationship - and gay women as with straight women have less hormonal drives that would lead to promiscuousness. For females, the promiscous behavior is more often than not, based on an emotional issue - not a hormonal drive.
If you look at abuse, you'll see that more women are abused when it is monitored in shelters - however, in therapy offices and police stations, there is an equal amount of men being abused.
So - it's all really how deep you dig for your stats.
It's just like the old, "airplanes are safer than cars" - but stat wise, if we had as many airplanes up as cars, and as often,that would not be the case.
In Reply to: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Beth [1458.1056] on April 28, 2004 at 04:07:15:
I know that as a person with a sister who is homosexual and my studies on homosexual abuse, that there is a sore/tender spot for those who are in these situations.....because they have already dealt with so much stress and discrimination.
So, in defense of the poster, I think that as some set the story straight (much needed) that we need to be a little more sensitive to the poster as well.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Michele [15.15] on April 28, 2004 at 08:54:43:
Absolutely, promiscuity in homosexual males is because they are male, not because they are homosexual.
In Reply to: Re: In defense posted by Michele [15.15] on April 28, 2004 at 08:56:35:
The sensitivity of every "minority" is understandable. Short people are sensitive, overweight people, deaf people... heck even light skinned African Americans versus dark skinned African Americans.
As a chiropractor I'm senstive toward the descrimination I have experienced from the medical community. Sometimes I find negativity where it probably doesn't even exist. When I see a website on alternative healthcare and chiropractic isn't included I see some magic conspiricy.
No on is immune to this. However, when that sensitivity turns into accusations which have no foundation it's certainly acceptable for others to point out the flaws in logic which have brought the person to their conclusion.
In Reply to: Re: In defense posted by DrDave [1744.14] on April 28, 2004 at 10:07:03:
Accusations.... not acceptable.
Discrimination needs to be dealth with both by society AND the individual. All positive change starts with small, individual steps.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by DrDave [1744.14] on April 28, 2004 at 10:01:04:
Which basically supports your original statement - just wanted to clarify that.
Off the subject - how is it that I thought I was so intune to my body, that I am so aware of fitness, muscles, etc...and in my own body I felt JOINT pain and it was actually very tight quads? (In addition to the Psoas issue)....
Isn't that ironic or at least odd that I was so unaware?
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Michele [6.15] on April 28, 2004 at 10:47:19:
The psoas muscle has to be contracting for a reason. When it comes to musculoskeletal problems a muscle reacts to the joints in which it affects(crosses). The lumbar spine and sacoroiliac joints are what the Psoas affect. As mentioned, the sacroiliac joints have a strong relationship to the knee(shown in the abstract links I put up). So it's possible that the SI problem causes not only the knee problem but the psoas problem. Also possible is that the psoas contraction is from some other source but affects that SI joint because it crosses it, causing dysfunction that leads to quadraceps muscle inhibition(part of the quads may have been tight but it's more likely that some part of them was being inhibited allowing your knee to be more unstable) and knee problems.
That's the thing that can make this all so complex. Even when you get to the cause of a problem you have to get to the cause of the cause.
So, we could say that the first DC caused an SI problem which both caused psoas contraction AND quadraceps muscle inhibition leading to knee problems. Or, the SI problem led to psoas contraction that led to other SI problems that led to knee problems.
It get's very confusing.
As for why you were not "in tune". It's not as simple as it sounds. The psoas muscle is not easy to "feel" if you are not familar with how it's contractions present.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by DrDave [1744.14] on April 28, 2004 at 11:14:09:
That's enough to make my head spin.
THe DC/Kinesiologist seemed to help though, so should I rest assured that sooner or later, I'll be "fixed"?
This IS something that will correct eventually with treatment, right?
As far as homosexuals - minorities in general have many discriminating issues of course; but my biggest concern is the lack of funding for research, and lack of motivation for research, for minorities.
At some point, the white male is going to be a minority (perhaps already) and the tables may turn. I'm in hopes that in the scope of all, it will even out and health research for all demographics will present with enough funding ....
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Michele [6.15] on April 28, 2004 at 11:58:39:
As for being "fixed", that all depends on getting to the cause of the cause. And SR is one base to cover there. Only time will tell.
White heterosexual males may already be a minority. However, when 90% of the money rests in 10% of the hands and almost all of those hands are male and white.... it's tough to change things.
White men run your government, your military, your healthcare and your churches. I don't suspect they are in any hurry to give that power up.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by DrDave [1744.14] on April 28, 2004 at 15:26:55:
SR as in Skilled Relaxation or Sac. joint?
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Michele [15.15] on April 28, 2004 at 16:11:40:
SR means skilled relaxation. The abbreviation for sacroiliac joint is SI or SIJ.
In Reply to: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Beth [1458.1056] on April 28, 2004 at 04:07:15:
Because someone has to say it...just because you don't think homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle DOES NOT make you a "homoPHOBE".There is no fear involved. No one I know "fears" gay people personally as a class of folks.I know of Christians who physically minister to dying homosexual aids victims. It does seem to me (even a hetrosexual is allowed an opinion in this country-so far) that the anal sex thing is unnatural, and causes health issues...I mean if we ARE talking about health here. And just to get it said, The Bible DOES NOT teach that "God hates Fags", that is just the hateful spewing of ignorant self-called Christians.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Renee [1011.653] on April 28, 2004 at 16:13:22:
Yes, SR as in Skilled Relaxation.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by DrDave [1744.14] on April 28, 2004 at 10:01:04:
I would expect homosexual males to be more promiscuous than heterosexual because of lack of a fear of getting somebody pregnant.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by R. [3.1119] on April 28, 2004 at 19:39:21:
Don't forget cooperation.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Michele [6.15] on April 28, 2004 at 11:58:39:
""but my biggest concern is the lack of funding for research, and lack of motivation for research, for minorities.""
I think aids research gets more funding that other more prevelant diseases. To turn a phrase that people here are want to say "Aids isn't a drug or vaccine deficiency."
Of course if you want to blame the white male..have fun.
In this country we all know what behaviors to avoid in order to remain relatively safe. IE: know your partner, wear a condom.
Funny how they seem to be doing a pretty good job here with some low tech solutions.
This disease costs us billions of dollars and thousands of lives and is largely preventable.
Scuse me for expecting people to use good judgement.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by coldjam [266.376] on April 28, 2004 at 16:31:32:
"just because you don't think homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle DOES NOT make you a 'homoPHOBE' "
Did you think before you posted this, or are you just ignorant?
homosexuality is not a "lifestyle" like country living. It is not a "choice" any more than your eye color or whether or not you are right or
left handed, or for that matter whether or not you are straight. It is the ease with which you you assume you are "right" and that
homosexuality is an abnormality which is so disturbing. Even the euphemisms like "lifestyle" show a fundamental and willful misunderstanding.
You're female. You know what sexism is. How can you be so blind to prejudice staring you in the face, and make statements like those
in your post is truly beyond me. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It just "is."
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Gregory [951.1009] on April 28, 2004 at 21:15:29:
This is not a proven thing by any stretch of the imagination.It appears to be one of those things that people believe ,that if they said loud enough and long enough, everyone will just go along with them, and it will become normalized. And it may well be...for a while. Those who insist empatically,homosexuality cannot be chosen, scream "homophobe" and spew hateful, nasty things at those who don't agree. You're right,I am female, I know what sexism is.I know it can apply to either sex. Over and above that,I know what it means to be shouted down. I understand mob mentality (Christian and otherwise).
"homosexuality is an abnormality which is so disturbing. Even the euphemisms like "lifestyle" show a fundamental and willful misunderstanding."..... you'll note,I did not say it was disturbing, and I perhaps I used the wrong word to express what I meant. I should have said,"practice",meaning the actual anal intercourse practiced by homosexual men.
There is plenty of valid information to the contrary of your opinion-even if you don't take into account the Creator's stance on it. Try to get over your emotion on the issue, do some thorough investigation on the topic (meaning BOTH sides) and tell us what you learn.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by coldjam [266.376] on April 28, 2004 at 22:39:43:
With a condensending tone like that, it's easy to see why Christianity appeals to you so much. There's nothing to learn. Well, at least not from you.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Sounder [156.89] on April 28, 2004 at 20:57:36:
Both good articles Sounder.There is a definate "lifestyle" involved in large communties of homomsexuals.Just as there are with hetrosexuals.... And I believe the "education", mentioned in the second article consisted of stressing abstinence rather than condom use.What is also interesting about that is, it also keeps down the population everyone is so worried about...and it is 100% effective!
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Sounder [156.89] on April 28, 2004 at 20:10:30:
That went beyond me. What did you mean?
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Gregory [951.1009] on April 28, 2004 at 21:15:29:
Statistically speaking, homosexuality IS an abnormality, no matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not.
In Reply to: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Beth [1458.1056] on April 28, 2004 at 04:07:15:
Was that the Ann we (think we) know and love on the board today?
Hope not!!!
Jane
In Reply to: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Beth [1458.1056] on April 28, 2004 at 04:07:15:
Thanks, Beth.
To be fair (and complete) you need to extend your reference to page 87 and I stand by my characterization. Taken in context, there is no doubt of my statement. There are obvious exceptions but taken as an entire picture--the only fair way to look at it--you have to admit that statistics bear me out.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Sounder [156.89] on April 28, 2004 at 20:57:36:
The problem isn't people being responsible, it's educating people and outreach in many cases.
And no, in many thing - not HIV - there is NOT enough research and funding. HIV was the topic only per the sexual note of this post.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Gregory [951.1009] on April 28, 2004 at 21:15:29:
Homosexuality is often not a lifestyle, but can be. Depends on the person. I know homosexuals who describe their sexuality as a "lifestyle choice"...
I happen to choose to live my life as a heterosexual, so in marketing, I'd be choosing a lifestyle of heterosexuality.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by DrDave [1744.14] on April 28, 2004 at 15:26:55:
Amen, DrDave!
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Michele [20.15] on April 29, 2004 at 07:14:24:
You "happen to" or have you been programmed to accept the status quo to such an extent, that it is a non-choice? "It's normal for Christsakes!"
Well yeah, except when it isn't. To gays, being gay is "normal." What isn't normal is the reaction to that normality.
You don't question your orientation because no one gives you flack about it. What goes on in your bedroom kitchen, den, behind closed doors, etc, is
your business. You take that right for granted, because you can. However as soon as you do, you have to grant that same right
to anyone with any other orientation. You are hypocritical to cast aspersions on anyone else, for any other reason. You cannot imply that one's
orientation is a consequence of or "caused by" some other factor. One's orientation just is.
Marriage [sly grin] is a choice. A "lifestyle" choice.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous. posted by Gregory [951.1009] on April 29, 2004 at 08:19:22:
*ahem* kitchen? Would that be for a snack or a meal?
:P
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous. posted by ~CT [105.435] on April 29, 2004 at 08:54:24:
I guess that depends on how long you spend eating...
In Reply to: A? posted by Jane [1475.4] on April 29, 2004 at 05:04:44:
It seems to me there have been two people posting as ANN lately, and I don't know which is which. I think the "real" ANN needs to go back to her old name.
In Reply to: Re: A? posted by Carol D. [634.155] on April 29, 2004 at 09:34:12:
Hi Carol D:
I've seen ANN (upper case) and Ann. Both appear to have different writing styles, as well as different points of views and ideas. They also have different numbers. They seem to be two different posters with the same name.
In Reply to: Re: A? posted by PhillyLady [1906.913] on April 29, 2004 at 09:41:22:
I believe I have seen the second Ann post in all caps before on the same thread in which the other ANN had responded. I believe she even made a comment about it. It was incredibly confusing. I do not know what the original ANN's number is, so if they both post in all caps I don't know for sure which is which. Different names all together would be easier for me to figure out, LOL.
In Reply to: A? posted by Jane [1475.4] on April 29, 2004 at 05:04:44:
hi- I'm the caps ANN, but people respond to me with ann and anne, so it gets confusing.And the other one or two current anns who weren't posting when I started using the name) are inconsistent with small and large letters. I got internet access in 2002 and found this site in 2003 , so, no, I'm not a 1998 poster.
The caps ANN stands for Another Nameless Number and came about when this foolish numbering system can into place. I posted under AnotherNamelessNumber for a while, then got lazy and went to ANN to save time.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous. posted by Gregory [951.1009] on April 29, 2004 at 08:19:22:
You got it Gregory. Marriage is a choice for Christ's sake.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Gregory [951.1009] on April 28, 2004 at 22:48:07:
You've proved my point.Thanks!
In Reply to: Re: A? posted by Carol D. [634.155] on April 29, 2004 at 10:20:08:
Hi Carol:
I was able to differentiate between the two when one posted all in caps. Now if both post in caps, then....who's who? Aagghhhh!
In Reply to: Re: A? posted by ANN [1077.516] on April 29, 2004 at 11:06:48:
Did you post under "maire" prior to the number system?
In Reply to: Re: A? posted by PhillyLady [1906.913] on April 29, 2004 at 11:29:28:
Hi PL,
I wish ANN would go back to maire (pre numbers) -- at least I'm pretty sure that's her!
/d
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by R. [186.1119] on April 28, 2004 at 23:59:17:
"Statistically speaking, homosexuality IS an abnormality, no matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not."
Can you back that up? How does being a minority make a person abnormal? Are other minorities abnormal? What about eskimos? Are they abnormal?
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous. posted by Gregory [951.1009] on April 29, 2004 at 08:19:22:
What the heck are you TALKING about?!
You are throwing a lot of assumptions, eh?
In Reply to: ?? posted by Michele [6.15] on April 29, 2004 at 18:10:27:
Funny, the other respondents to my post seem to get it just fine. Assumptions ARE the point. Get it?
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by peterb [27.23] on April 29, 2004 at 16:39:32:
Do you imply that you believe that homosexual behaviour constitutes a normal (being approximately average, mathematically speaking) behavior among humans?
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by R. [186.1119] on April 29, 2004 at 21:39:30:
"Statistically speaking, homosexuality IS an abnormality... Then, "Do you imply that you believe that homosexual behaviour constitutes...normal behaviour?"
In the earlier comment, you refer only to sexual status of the individual, in the next you are referring to their behaviour. It's an important distinction. Do you equate homosexual orientation to the homosexual act? Do you refer to heterosexuals who have less sex than average heterosexuals as an "abnormality?" Are eskimos abnormal because they do things only eskimos do, or simply because they are a minority?
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by peterb [17.14] on April 30, 2004 at 07:57:20:
When I used the word homosexuality, I was referring to people's sexual relations with persons of the same sex, which I equate to homosexual behaviour.
Do you refer to heterosexuals who have less sex than average heterosexuals as an "abnormality?"
Depending on numerical criteria one establishes for the purpose of determining a norm, having less (or more) sex than average could be considered an abnormality. Same applies to certain aspects of Eskimos. Or a name of Peter in a tribe of, say, Masai of Kenya.
You seem to attach an emotional charge to the word "abnormal", probably thinking in terms of good and bad. You shouldn't. As I said in my first post on this topic, statistically speaking.
In Reply to: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by R. [3.1119] on April 30, 2004 at 14:29:00:
This leads to a remarkable conclusion, R. EVERY single human being is "abnormal" because no one perfectly typifies every average for every behaviour!
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by Michele [6.15] on April 28, 2004 at 11:58:39:
That's an interesting point.But the "White-male" catagory everyone uses as the "powers that be", are not looking out for white-male health per se, the people at the top always go where the money is...which disease will garner them the most return.I hope the lack of focus on what you consider overlooked research,will steer people to look for remedies outside the so-called medical field.The medical industry is a commercial enterprise designed to produce profits NOT health.Most of us on this site probably agree about this to one degree or another.I am not saying there are not good researchers and doctors-but they don't control things.Which brings me back to the white-male thing.
I believe this division of people into skin colors is the Evolutionists method of maintaining class warfare.(some of the worst evils in the world viewed geopolitically are found perpetrated in Asia, India/Pakistan, Africa and the Arab countries.I don't think you'd be happy living under their systems.Contrary to popular myths, white males are NOT in control in those parts of the world.)
I think the enemy is not a racial/gender specific group.There is a worldwide struggle going on. There has been all along. It has nothing to do with physical characteristics. It is between good and evil. White males are no more evil or innocent as a group than any other. At least we have a system of Government (designed by white males) that protects individuals and prevents abuse better than any other system in the world.Not perfect true. But I am thankful for the white males who made this country a place where I can walk down the street without a burkha, and complain, in the public square, about my rights as a female, etc.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by peterb [17.14] on April 30, 2004 at 14:42:09:
If we consider homosexual behaviour (you know, the topic we've been discussing), we will see that homosexual behaviour can be reasonably (I guess an arguable term) call anomalous or abnormal. According to http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/2000_Census_Total.htm, percentage of heterosexuals in the total population of the USA is about 96%. While some behavioural aspects are difficult to typify, it's easy to tell who's homosexual and who's not. Hence, it is easy to determine what a normal behaviour for a population is in terms gender preference.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by R. [3.1119] on April 30, 2004 at 16:03:08:
"While some behavioural aspects are difficult to typify, it's easy to tell who's homosexual and who's not."
I am curious to know what it is that so easily tells you who is gay and who isn't. Except for rediculous TV and movie stereotypes, such mannerisms are the exception, not the rule. For that matter, I've often observed "effiminate" males who turn out to be heterosexual. I have also been surprised to learn that feminine female turn out to be gay! Do you also believe Donna Reed is every American boy's mother?
And what is the point in tagging non-typical behaviour as abnormal, anyway? Isn't it easier to simply observe that people are different? Isn't use of the word "abnormal" just an way to feel more "normal" about yourself, as if you are making some sort of class distinction? And what about bi-sexual behaviour? Can you identify those individuals simply by discussing the weather? I would spend less time in Webster's dictionary and more time in the real world, where you might be surprised to learn that not everything is so easily labelled as you seem to think.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by peterb [27.23] on May 01, 2004 at 23:04:41:
am curious to know what it is that so easily tells you who is gay and who isn't.
Well, performing sexual acts on persons of the same gender seems like a good indicator to me. And relying on people's positive personal answers to a question "Are you gay?" in Census survey seems reliable enough too.
And what is the point in tagging non-typical behaviour as abnormal, anyway? Isn't it easier to simply observe that people are different? Isn't use of the word "abnormal" just an way to feel more "normal" about yourself, as if you are making some sort of class distinction? And what about bi-sexual behaviour?...
Here you do it again, Peter. Gregory must be enjoying this if he's watching. First, you reply to my statement that homosexuality is an anomaly, statistically speaking. But when you couldn't argue against my arguments, you changed your arguments into "What's the point, anyway?".
I will accept one of the following, Peter:
- prove my statement wrong;
- admit that your statement is wrong. Is it, BTW, that homosexuality isn't anomalous from the perspective of the whole human society?
- withdraw from the debate by explicitly stating so or not replying in this part of the thread
Your attempts to change the topic of debate is laughable.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by R. [3.1119] on May 02, 2004 at 12:53:42:
I haven't said that homosexuals aren't a minority, I've said your criteria (ie., the "average" in terms of some behaviour) makes every human being abnormal. In your effort to oversimplify, you conclude that my effort to broaden the discussion is an attempt to change the topic. It's hard to see how we were having a discussion before I interjected a few relevant questions.
You do make some irrational comments, however. For example:
"While some behavioural aspects are difficult to typify, it's easy to tell who's homosexual and who's not...well, performing sexual acts on persons of the same gender seems like a good indicator to me."
Your first comment suggests you easily distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals, however your response to my question demonstrates why this is impossible. You cannot identify homosexuals on the basis of private sexual conduct unless you are there to observe it! Again, if you are merely stating what constitutes homosexual behaviour, how does this allow us to "easily" identify homosexuals in society? I find your statement to be a non sequitur. As for surveys, they are only as accurate as an individual's honesty, and this is one subject where self-honesty is probably lacking. In the past, other population surveys have come up with very different results. I might add that my question about bi-sexuals is a fair one, but I assume you ignored it because it doesn't fit into your convenient classification system.
In my view, use of the word "abnormal" as a clinical description of homosexuals is often opportunistic. The word is more commonly used as a perjorative, so it can be used under cover of clinical exactitude to disguise one's personal view that such behaviour is morally reprehensible. If that is your view, I would hope you have the personal integrity to stand by it openly.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by peterb [27.23] on May 02, 2004 at 17:15:02:
In order to discuss anything and make decisions in life, we have to make some assumptions. If we use your logic ("were you there to observe…?"), then we shouldn't discuss practically anything. One can subject anything and probably everything to doubt: Were you there to observe a particular study? Was your father there to observe your birth and every single moment when you could've been replaced by another baby? Were we there when a war was said to have happened? Are there really those countries that we haven't been to? Is Codex really coming and have the restrictions on sale of supplements really been proposed considering that haven't been there to observe the proposition?................................. I find this logic impractical. You have hardly been "there" in enough places to recommend anything to anyone. This logic of yours could be used to undermine probably every argument of your on any topic.
I don't see how my view of homosexuality (in the context of morality) is relevant to the debate whether it is an anomaly. I don’t want to acquiesce in your another attempt to derail the debate. Neither do I care that the word "abnormal" is used clinically to describe anything. I have specifically stated what I meant by it and hoped that my statement was clear enough and could be remembered throughout the whole debate.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by R. [186.918] on May 02, 2004 at 22:54:27:
Now why would you expect that R.? Any attempt to debate Peter is useless. If you disagree with him then he will subvert any and all
points of debate until the debate itself is useless as a vehicle of exploration, and if you agree with him, he will condensending expound
with his total store of knowledge gleened elsewhere and presented here as his own. Honestly R., I don't know why you bother.
But I was enjoying it, right up until the time you snapped Peter back to reality.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal [R.] posted by Gregory [951.4] on May 02, 2004 at 23:39:25:
Why did I bother? Castaneda's Don Juan might have said that it's controlled stupidity. :) It was entertaining, and at least one more person (you) enjoyed it.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal [R.] posted by R. [186.918] on May 03, 2004 at 00:38:18:
Oh, I too enjoyed the discussion between Peter and R., seriously. This gay issue has become a new interest of mine because here in my new experience in north CA, I've met the very first gay woman and the very first bi-sexual woman I had ever seen in my life, who have openly acknowledged that they are gay/bi-sexual.
I'm still puzzled by the fact that one can be sexually attracted to people from both sexes. I don't have any problems to befriend with them, and have no interest in what's happening behind closed doors, but when I ponder over this issue, I just don't get it, especially the bi-sexual part. So I wonder if this is something one has to experience to understand.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by R. [186.918] on May 02, 2004 at 22:54:27:
I have tried to point out the limited value of terms such as "normal" and "abnormal," while you have fixated on defending comments that I never contested. I have not leapt, as you have, from knowing what a poet does to knowing who among us are poets. Because our "shared" experience is so varied, we should not use assumptive reasoning as a basis for making groundless assertions. That is why I asked you what you thought about bi-sexuality, as it suggests a spectrum of human sexual response that is not typical of behaviour at the extremes. As far as easy identification, we can know that a writer writes, and we can know that a crook steals, but we cannot know which is which simply by chatting at the water cooler, unless they provide a copy of their survey response.
A problem occurs when we use the same words to mean different things. Even worse, when conflicting ideas are used interchangeablely in support of a circuitous conclusion. For instance, using a social consensus about homosexual behaviour is not a basis for asserting that homosexuals are easily identified. It only suggests that you have objectified this feature of human behaviour to such an extent that you don't question it. If I am to believe your theory that the world, every discussion, and every advance in science would come to a halt without the lowly assumption, you are asking me to ignore the evidence of history. The invention of air travel, space exploration, television, telephone, computer, vaccines, cloning, the position of the earth relative to the sun, and probably the manipulation of fire and water by early humans, were all achieved by someone who contradicted the commonly held assumption that none of these things were possible.
If you saw 60 minutes last night, you saw a story about the institutionization of children during the 1930's who were "slow," and whose medical diagnosis was officially registered in state records as either "moron" (almost normal), or "idiot" (lacking basic intelligence.) These "medical terms" were not widely questioned during the 1930's, and children observed to behave in ways consistent with their assumed meaning were subject to warehousing. Some years later, many of these indivdiuals were understood to have been perfectly normal in the common sense of that word, though certainly not when compared to either exceptional children, or to children whose parents were not economically disadvantaged (explaining how state care workers came to intervene in these families to begin with.) The point I am making is that if observed phenomenon can be shown to have been groundless assumptive reasoning, how can assumptions about unobserved behaviour lead to anything other than speculation? In other words, we have no idea whether homosexuals make up 4%, 8%, or even 15% of the population, unless we are certain the survey responses are 100% accurate. And we cannot be certain about that.
Assumptions are a dangerous feature of human communication because we cannot assume a common frame of reference for all participants. If we could, there would never be any reason for discussion at all.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by peterb [27.23] on May 03, 2004 at 21:27:21:
In closing (and concluding my participation in this thread), I will leave you with a quote...
"A thinker defines his thoughts by his other thoughts, a believer defines his beliefs by another's beliefs."
Do you know who said it?
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by critic [312.4] on May 03, 2004 at 12:41:40:
So I wonder if this is something one has to experience to understand.
I think experiencing it would give some understanding, which can be at different levels. But even after experiencing it, you might still be puzzled. Many people who have driven automobiles and flown airplanes don't know how these machines work.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by critic [312.4] on May 03, 2004 at 12:41:40:
If you think of sexuality and so-called "orientation" as a range along a spectrum rather than descrete points with straight at one and
homosexual at the other, then conceptually at least you will have a much better model for seeing sexuality as it is. Keep in mind sexuality
is not some area of thought that away from all other thoughts you have. It is overall how you view everthing that will determine your
thoughts in the arena of sexuality. The line of demarcation is artificial, and typically is based more on thoughts and values instilled during
childhood then a native orientation. Because this is not always the case, it can be perplexing to trace one's sexuality, and in what
ways you are going to give rein to your own interests and curiosity. Were it not for the stigma that accompanies these explorations, my best guess
is that people would explore their sexuality to the limits of both, with only early childhood training as the limiting factor.
In Reply to: p.s. posted by peterb [27.23] on May 03, 2004 at 21:35:34:
Great quote!
I'm definitely a thinker (but then I already knew that!).
Since I have no idea who said it I'm be eagerly watching for the answer.
In Reply to: Re: p.s. posted by Renee [1011.653] on May 03, 2004 at 21:56:18:
To my knowledge, you'll find no reference in any search engine, but the quote is from Pintar Brunofunk. My father knew him well. I can't say more.
In Reply to: Re: p.s. posted by peterb [17.14] on May 04, 2004 at 08:10:22:
I know you'll appreciate a good mystery, Renee!
In Reply to: Re: p.p.s. posted by peterb [17.14] on May 04, 2004 at 10:28:40:
Well you know me pretty well then...
Who was he? Surely you can at least provide a thumbnail sketch...
In Reply to: Re: p.p.s. posted by Renee [1011.653] on May 04, 2004 at 11:02:06:
Ok, I'll tell you a little about him. He is still living, and two small objects in space were named after him many years ago. I don't know the exact dates this occured, and I can't explain how it was my father came to know him. That part remains a secret.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by R. [186.918] on May 03, 2004 at 21:37:35:
Well in that case, I probably will never get it (bi-sexuality), since I don't have sexual interest in women and thus will not have the experience. Do you understand/get bi-sexuality?
BTW, R., it looks like you have lost the debate with Peter, doesn't it? heh heh. or are you squeezing your brains now to come up with some real smart last word to defeat him...;)
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by Gregory [951.1009] on May 03, 2004 at 21:53:00:
But G, I have always seen everything in the form of spectrum/continuum, including sexuality. That's actually where my puzzle comes from. Within any spectrum, you see, there is a happy medium or "central path," which is close to the Tao, close to the balanced state. But it seems homosexuality and bi-sexuality don't quite make it to the happy medium or central path. So, it seems to me they are not exactly balanced yin/yang energies. Make sense?
BTW, I don't think I was ever "trained" to find the opposite ses attractive; it just happened as the natural development of the bodymind. Like the natural instincts of just about all animals.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by critic [1215.1043] on May 04, 2004 at 20:26:16:
In my view, yin/yang is a matter of balancing body and mind as an act of will. I see sexuality as just another animal response, with no bearing on the metaphysical state.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by peterb [27.23] on May 04, 2004 at 20:39:39:
---I see sexuality as just another animal response, with no bearing on the metaphysical state.---
That's a rather superficial way of looking at it, peterb.
I do not believe that at all. Sex is what you make it. It can be sacred, physical, metaphysical, spiritual, emotional, yada yada yada YADA!. not JUST an animal response!
Btw, I agree with critic. I think you won that argument with R. :)
Kudos to you! I AM impressed! ;-)
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by critic [1215.1043] on May 04, 2004 at 20:15:14:
Do you understand/get bi-sexuality?
Not in a sense that you seem to mean. I don't feel attracted to both sexes. Or the same sex, for that matter. I just accept that there are people who do wierd things...
Regarding Peter, I just have other things to do and haven't had time to read and reply to what he's written lately.
In Reply to: Re: Walt says I'm promiscuous posted by peterb [27.23] on April 29, 2004 at 16:39:32:
Hi PeterB,
Can I ask why the organs are called "Reproductive"?
Nuff said.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by peterb [27.23] on May 03, 2004 at 21:27:21:
I have tried to point out the limited value of terms such as "normal" and "abnormal," while you have fixated on defending comments that I never contested.
I have long realized that these terms, as virtually any other words, are limited in their ability to express thoughts and especially feelings, so you didn't have to tell me that. To discuss THAT wasn't the purpose of my initial participation in the thread. And if you didn't contest my initial comments, then we have no debate. You asked me to back up my initial statement, and I did. I took what you said later as your attempt to dispute my statement. You should've just communicated more clearly that you wanted to discuss something else.
The invention of air travel, space exploration,
television, telephone, computer, vaccines, cloning, the position of the earth relative to the sun, and probably the manipulation of fire and water by early humans, were all achieved by someone who contradicted the commonly held assumption that none of these things were possible.
I am sure that they also made many assumptions about things they had never observed.
The point I am making is that if observed phenomenon can be shown to have been groundless assumptive reasoning, how can assumptions about unobserved behaviour lead to anything other than speculation? In other words, we have no idea whether homosexuals make up 4%, 8%, or even 15% of the
population, unless we are certain the survey responses are 100% accurate. And we cannot be certain about that.
I don't think we can be certain 100% about very many things, and definitely not about studies in the nutritional and medical areas of science. However, you have allowed yourself to make statements in a way that made them sound as if they were facts. If you truly believe what you said in the paragraph above, you should retract, for example, what
you recently said to Miss Bliss about cooked foods, enzymes, milk, etc. To be consistent, the only thing you can say is that you think or believe that such and such foods cause such and such health problems, and that you really "have no idea" whether it's true because you can't be sure that results of studies about which you had read or
comments made by people you had interviewed were 100% accurate.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by Yin [4.275] on May 04, 2004 at 22:18:10:
Good points, and I agree that metaphysical qualities can be expressed through sexual feelings. I should have been more clear and said that one's sexual orientation, like race or height, is what I see as part of the animal nature (exclusive of how we express these traits.) But do you think a successful sexual relationship is necessary to find a balance in yin/yang energy for a given individual? I don't think so, partly because I believe in reincarnation, so I see variation in life experience as how we achieve mastery at the oversoul level.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by peterb [27.23] on May 04, 2004 at 20:39:39:
Actually, yin/yang mostly come from nature, like how a women's cycle corresponds to the cycle of the moon. No matter how much a man "WILL" it, he can't have the natural monthly flow. Or, similarly, no matter how a woman wants it, she can't produce seman out of her own body.
I like to think homosexuality as a cultural construct--but then again, as I mentioned earlier, this is a new area that I'm not very familiar with, so I'm open to others' opinions.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by R. [186.918] on May 04, 2004 at 23:31:04:
Yeah. But seriously, I'm pretty sure you have read Peter's comments. Want a bet? ;)
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by critic [312.4] on May 05, 2004 at 10:52:56:
I have now. And were you here to observe me read his comments? LOL
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by critic [312.4] on May 05, 2004 at 10:50:13:
That makes sense, because the chinese see foods as either yin or yang, and if I'm not mistaken, women are considered yang, while men are yin. I'm honestly not sure how to relate these to metaphysical ideas, maybe we'll discuss in a future thread!
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by R. [3.918] on May 05, 2004 at 11:17:15:
Sure I were. I'm everywhere...hehehe
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by peterb [17.14] on May 05, 2004 at 12:00:28:
Nope, it's the other way round: males are naturally ruled more by the yang energy, and females, more by yin energy.
The food association is even more complex, but the gist of it: for either food or sex or anything else, in each and everything, there is the presence of both yin and yang, interacting and interdpendent on each other. Neither is static but both are in constant motion, and at some point each can transform into the other when pushed to the extreme.
The yin/yang concept is the basics of ancient philosophy, so they really R related to metaphysics.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by critic [1067.1043] on May 05, 2004 at 14:32:42:
Very interesting, I believe the Chinese are very wise. Thanks for the info.
In Reply to: Re: Homosexuality; Normal vs. abnormal posted by critic [1215.1043] on May 04, 2004 at 20:26:16:
You would not have been aware of the training. It is largely non-verbal. Your orientation cues happen so early that there is scarely
conscious awareness of it. What you ARE aware of is tacit approval/disapproval for a whole range of behaviors, not just your sexuality.
Also, I feel compelled to point out that you have a tendency to ascribe Tao and/or "naturally right living" that which are better
ascribed to personal choice. For you, that which is close to some imaginary "central path" is right for you. To make the assumption that it is right
for everyone, or that others are somehow miserable or unhappy if not on the same path as you is both fallacy and the height of arrogance.
Your puzzlement is the product of narrowmindedness. The spectrum is just that. The is no place along it that is more "right" than any other
place on it. I suggest you revise your paradigm if understanding rather than impostion of your philosophy is what you seek.
|
[ Sex Questions Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |