Blogcritics Comments on Homos, Brian Flemming and me

Comment by Brian Flemming

Wed, 9 Jul 2003 14:42:01 EDT

Comment by A.J.

Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:30:25 EDT

Doctor Slack - Eric was correct. My grammar sucks. By no means was I suggesting atheists are sexual deviants. Phillip - I stand corrected on the articles, but I was not attempting to comment about orientation/arousal in my post. My point was in regards to how society in general views gender roles and maybe this perception is a factor in how people accept homosexuality. While I have no formal research I've been to plenty of events where two girls were holding hands and nobody looked twice. I would venture that such an act doesn't necessarily make them any less feminine. However, if it were two men holding hands I think the straight crowd would not consider such behavior masculine. Beyond sex, I feel when gay men or women act opposite of society's gender expectations the straight crowd gets uneasy. And I wasn't really concerned about being right or wrong. I only intended to offer another idea to this conversation.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:42:25 EDT

A.J., did you not bother to read the linked articles? The research did not at all suggest that women are "more open to bisexual orientation," but rather that their orientation seem to be generally unrelated to physical arousal. You said: Now ask any man or woman what they think of viewing male porn. For some reason both straight men AND women are turned off by this. I offered evidence that suggests that you are incorrect, or at least that how someone answers a question about a given visual stimulus apparently does not reflect the actual physical effect of that visual stimulus. The obvious implication is that negative verbal responses you might receive when asking women the question you suggest are either (1) because you're asking a personal question they don't want to answer or (2) societal, exactly the subject at hand. So I'm essentially accusing you of circular reasoning, though I presume innocence since you were apparently unaware of the research I cited.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:24:43 EDT

Actually, I think AJ was saying that if the religious reasons for banning pedophilia and bestiality weren't applicable (ie to atheists), then here are the secular reasons...

Comment by Doctor Slack

Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:15:30 EDT

A.J.: I agree with Phil Winn. Also with the secular bases of your arguments against bestiality and pedophilia, which are non-controversial. As to this: "(For all you atheists animals & children cannot legitimately consent to sex)" It reveals something about your thinking that you imagine "atheists" as a blanket category who wouldn't understand this. You've basically implied in the above sentence that any "atheists" reading your post were routinely practising bestiality and pedophilia before you enlightened them. Or were you saying that "atheists, animals and children cannot legitimately consent to sex"? Whatever the case, it seems a primer or two is in order.

Comment by A.J.

Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:51:14 EDT

Phillip, The research you linked points towards women being more open to bisexual orientation so I'm not sure where you disagree with me. I was not attempting to establish my observations as fact, but I do think said opinions are valid in this dialogue.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:05:26 EDT

Sorry, A.J., but the factual basis for your post is simply wrong. According to recent research, while men are aroused by the gender in which they are interested, women are aroused by either gender, including watching two men. Note that arousal is not the same as mental acceptance. A woman might (and in the case many that I know, does) cringe at the thought of watching two men, but the change in reflectivity of her nether regions demonstrates that her repugnance is not as complete as she might think. Generally speaking, of course.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:46:30 EDT

Excellent points AJ, and pedophilia and bestiality are 100% wrong, never okay, should have legal penalties against them, was just too tired to point it out when the comment was made. I'm not too keen on people who are turned on by feces and urine either, but ... no blood no foul.

Comment by A.J.

Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:21:26 EDT

Good morning all. There's a lot to read here and I wanted to offer something that hopefully is not a redundant thought. I think much of the problem that comes with the acceptance of homosexuality stems from how people view gender roles. Ask most straight men if they would look at your typical Penthouse lesbian spread and they wouldn't blink. Two girls gettin' it on? Most men aren't turned off by this. It's erotic, men live the fantasy and project themselves into the photo, video, etc. Somehow two women together can still be seen as feminine. Break the Penthouse mold, beef a girl up, cut her hair really short, throw on a flannel shirt and now that the guy isn't physically attracted to her she's a dyke. Personally, I don't know any lesbians that own "Where The Boys Aren't 69". That's why they call it "Gay For Pay". Now ask any man or woman what they think of viewing male porn. For some reason both straight men AND women are turned off by this. Why? I feel it's because two men together can't be seen as masculine. If Britney & Christina were caught in liplock, instant chubby for most of the male population. How many women fantasize about seeing Brad Pitt & Tom Cruise having hot sex? "Ewwww!" says the straight crowd. Even in a straight threesome, put two girls with a guy and everybody licks & sticks no rules. Put two guys with a girl and Tom better not be stickin' it to Brad while he's stickin you. I think people who are gay while being defined by gender roles also have the clarity to see through them. My sister is bisexual and it occurred to me when she dates men while they're physically strong, they're personalities are submissive, however, when she dates women she's not as dominant. I think my sister's softer side comes out when she is dating a woman. I hope for the day when there is more acceptance of homosexuals in the mainstream. If you think about it take away the physical act of sex (which REALLY is people's problem right?) and you can't logically argue that same sex couples are wrong. Bestiality - WRONG. Animals have no soul. While God will most certainly allow Fido a place by your side in Heaven, he won't be speaking there either. Pedophilia - WRONG. Children do not have the physical, mental or spiritual maturity for a committed relationship let alone sex. (For all you atheists animals & children cannot legitimately consent to sex) Two adult men or women spending their lives together, sharing with one another, moving towards a common goal... seems odd that anyone could consider that wrong.

Comment by Al Barger

Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:11:41 EDT

Relevant to this discussion, I found THIS ACCOUNT of the last hours of Strom Thurmond's life.

Comment by Doctor Slack

Thu, 3 Jul 2003 02:42:59 EDT

Sorry, I lost the original version of this post with most of its hyperlinks, and I'm too tired to redo it all at this point. "I believe (I don't know the source exactly) that there has been no evidence that sexual preferences are based upon a genetic code" Dean Hamer's famous paper of 1993 is the centrepiece of the "gay gene" debate. It's still in play AFAIK. Chandler Burr points out that orientation is a "black box" trait manifesting biologically in any number of ways, but not clearly attributable to any single factor. The "EBE" theory, proposed by a gent at Cornell whose name escapes me for the mome, tries to rescue a social argument for sexual orientation but concedes that what's really at issue is a highly complex interaction between social and biological factors. This is close to the position currently held by the APA. All of it is bad news for the Seventh Day Adventists, "ex-gay ministries" and pseudoscience like "reparative therapy." No-one pretends that sexual orientation is entirely explained at this point, but virtually no-one working in the field that I'm aware of seriously contends that biology isn't a major factor, and most give it a dominant role.

Comment by visualsimplicity

Thu, 3 Jul 2003 01:00:53 EDT

Doc,
There's no difference between extreme bigotry and bigotry. Bigotry is bigotry. Here's the thing though, there is bigotry for a noble cause and bigotry for an un-noble cause. Both are bad. If one is intolerant of people (as a group) who take a neutral stand to something, then one is a bigot. Yes, extremists are the people that get things done, they can also be the ones to get things undone. However, if everyone held a neutral attitude, nothing would need to be done. But then wouldn't life be boring then? It probably would be.
Anyway, I believe you misinterpreted my disagreement to gay-bashing (or maybe I'm misinterpreting your response). What I meant was that I wouldn't stand for the physical harming of another human being. So I don't quite see the point of your mental exercise.
By the way, about the homosexuality and heterosexuality being hardwired. I believe (I don't know the source exactly) that there has been no evidence that sexual preferences are based upon a genetic code (and I believe that 90%+ [from last I heard] of the genetic map of humans has been decoded). Thus, it would seem to me that sexual preference is some how developed from social interaction.

Comment by Natalie

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:09:27 EDT

Hugs to everyone. Each of us is a pain sometimes. :)

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:56:55 EDT

Brian, a) the first two paragraphs were real funny b) the rest made sense, and on an individual level I will agree with what you said, and c) no one I know hates you, you're just a pain sometimes. We disagree only on this as far as I can tell: society can offer levels of general approval without taking it out on individuals. I say of course it can. It does this in all kinds of arenas, including farting as you mentioned a few weeks ago in this very thread.

Comment by Natalie

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:44:20 EDT

Yes!

Comment by Brian Flemming

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:12:49 EDT

First, I think everyone has gotten away from the point of this thread, which is titled "Homos, Brian Flemming and me." People have largely stopped talking about me, Brian Flemming, so you are all, prima facie, off topic. I can't wait for the day when someone does a Google search on "Brian Flemming" and "Homos, Brian Flemming and me" pops up as a search result. This has always been my dream. "Brian Flemming poopies his Pampers" will be the next result, I hope. (Those who despise Brian: Linking to these pages from your own website makes this result more likely.) Seems the debate is down to this: Homos are okay. Hets are okay. But those young folks in the middle--we need to look out for them. Not a bad idea. But counselling, say, an 18-year-old who believes he might be gay to do a soul-search and see if he couldn't bring himself to be straight is flat-out cruel. It's cruel to the kid, it's cruel to the female partners he will have who will always wonder what is wrong with them, because something will always be missing in this guy's relationships. It's cruel to the kids who will not have a live-in father when this guy finally can't take the denial anymore and "comes out" at 45 years old, leaving his wife to pursue who he really is. This shit happens, and it usually happens because the gay guy feared being a gay guy--because of pressure from family or society. Such a tendency in society--to keep a taboo against gayness because, um, there's a taboo against gayness so being gay is hard--would be justified if there were many people who could truly be happy either way. But, as Slack points out, this is fallacious. Someone here might know one or two of these folks, but by and large society's (and families') disapproval of gays results in shame and pain, not happiness. There's no way to gently hint to a gay kid that you don't approve of who he is--ANY disapproval is painful. The only thing to do is to say, "Gay, straight, neither is better than the other--be who you are, and we will love you." Oh--and to follow through on that, too.

Comment by Natalie

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:33:39 EDT

Dolmance31: I would actually agree with you on a procedural level. A legislative change would have been preferable. However, when we are talking about something so vile as denying equal rights to any human -- which is what this country has practiced against people born here who have never, ever been equal under law -- it seems to me as if this is nitpicking over how a meeting is run under Robert's Rules of Order. America is a wee bit closer to what it claims to be, thanks to the SCOTUS sodomy ruling. No one had to be killed in order to make it happen, so, I'm in. Because every day that passes without equality for all is unforgivable. And frankly, I care more about people than procedure. Doesn't mean I don't see your point, which does have merit.

Comment by dolmance31

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:56:00 EDT

There is a disturbing aspect to the Supreme court's decision. Legislation from the bench is possibly the most odious form of tyranny yet practiced by6 our lawless government. I am all for the homos, and i am further an AVID, nay RABID practitioner of every conceivable form of sodomistic pleasures. i burn my incense exclusively on the altar to Sodom. I also am in favor of Homos since that leaves more females for me to sodomize! Obviously the anti-sodomy laws are preposterous and intrusive. The way to abolish the laws is by use of the legislative branch though. No reasonable person can say otherwise. The implications surrounding this latest high court decision are forboding at best. Again, we see the federal government encroaching on and obliterating State's rights. this sets up a horrifying precedent! Perhaps the next Supreme court deciision will be to decide for the states that the first ammendment is not applicable any longer. I do believe in, embrace, and worship all aspects of buggery, fellatio, bestiality, necrophelia, cunnilingus, snow balling, water sports, electro sex, daisy chains, masochism, sadism, coprophagia, pederasty, and every other niggling facet of the dusky gem known as Sodomy. I am also not a bigot. I do, however, insist that such immoral laws be repealed by the legislative branch though, and not over-ridden by the hubristic robed minions of the High Court.

Comment by Doctor Slack

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:53:54 EDT

To visual: "I can understand the feelings of certain individuals who are against homosexuality (of course I don't agree with people who are so extreme as to gay-bash or anything that like)." Understanding intolerance is one thing, condoning it (in any form) is something else. I think it crucial to understand intolerance of any kind and its sources, and just as crucial to actively oppose it. See, it's easy to make seemingly neutral statements like the above when you're part of the dominant group (vis a vis whatever the subject is) -- that's part of the fun of being in any kind of socially dominant group. But those things don't sound neutral to people in the non-dominant group: they sound like a tacit acceptance of bigotry as long as it doesn't get too extreme. And there's a reason for this. Members of non-dominant groups of any kind know all too well -- often from personal experience, often from shared lore -- that those who tacitly condone any form of a prejudice are historically unlikely to take any significant risk to oppose the more extreme forms of that prejudice. As the dark history of eugenics has demonstrated, this can have supremely nasty consequences. A little mental exercise -- try replacing the words "homosexuality" and "gay bash" in your above sentence with the words "Negroes" and "lynch" (or "Jews" and "exterminate") and see if you feel the same way about it. To Eric: I'll steer clear of cakes and the eating thereof, and simply deal with one element of your argument I forgot to address above. Several times, you've proposed a kind of archetypal child suspended between poles of heterosexuality and homosexuality, with a choice between the two. I think that's fallacious, and here's why. Sexual identity -- of whatever flavour -- appears, at least from everything I've read on the subject, to be very deeply hardwired. This is true of people whose preferences are isosexual (whether hetero- or homo-), and true of bisexuals as well. In all epochs, I think history has shown pretty conclusively that people will go to enormous lengths and subject themselves to significant suffering in order to follow their preferred orientation. I can think of no human society in which this has not been true. If I'm correct, the choice is not between encouraging individuals who might go either way to follow the more socially acceptable path. There are no tabula rasa children -- no neutral, choose-your-own-adventure sexual identities. The choice is rather between 1) encouraging people whose chosen sexual identity might be frowned upon to "go along to get along," on the theory that the psychological cost to them will be offset by an easier path through society, or 2) learning about and supporting the individual identity of the child in question, on the theory that their identification with and support from you will help offset the difficulties they will face in society as a whole. I understand the temptations of 1), but I think the evidence points to 2) being the healthier strategy almost every time. A child with genuinely supportive parents can often grow up into a healthy and successful individual despite the worst bigotry a society can throw at them. Conversely, a child who's convinced their parents view the most fundamental part of their selves as somehow "unnatural," fundamentally flawed or socially nonviable faces far steeper odds, no matter how permissive society at large may or may not be.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:52:40 EDT

Nat my pet, that was a (very) small joke merely meant to point out the irony of the situation, which is indeed, IRONIC. No one has a social duty to reproduce - I didn't say that don't think it. I said it is a deeply embedded instinct, and satifying deeply embedded instincts, of which parenting is one of the most deeply embedded is ... satisfying, as you have noted. No one needs to be either encouraged or discouraged from breeding. I speak only in broadest generalities - social ideals. I have zero problems with your orientation being right for you, with you parenting, this is all the swellest. All I have said is that society at the broadest level is allowed to express an ideal for sexual relationships. Lots of things that ARE RIGHT for individuals would not be ideal if extrapolated over all of society. If everyone was hetero mankind would suffer no ill effects evolutionarily - if everyone was gay mankind would disappear in one generation. This cannot be ignored and is not trivial. I see no way around having this reality hanging loosely over mankind, pushing it IN A GENERAL SENSE toward heterosexuality. No one has to give up rights, self-respect or anything else I can think of to acknowledge this reality.

Comment by Natalie

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:58:20 EDT

"Having your cake and eating it too"? Would that be the case, as well, for infertile heterosexuals who use alternative-insemination methods? If they can not biologically reproduce -- low sperm count, narrow fallopian tubes, whatever -- isn't nature telling them, too, to do without parenthood? If a couple undergoes in vitro fertilization or locates a surrogate or egg or sperm donor, and they have a fulfilling sex life that is in line with their sexual orientation, aren't they having their cake and eating it too, as well? And while we are at it, should society encourage childless, legally married hets to have children and fulfill their apparent duty to society? I would imagine not. And if what I imagine is correct, it would then follow that you are saying that gays -- and gays alone -- are not meant to have children. Would that be correct? I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:30:34 EDT

No problem with gay parenting, it goes with encouraging monogomy and family values. Adoption is fine - get those kids into families. However, we must also acknowledge the "have your cake and eat it too" element of this since there had to have been some kind of heterosexual biology somewhere along the line to have the kids in the first place.

Comment by visualsimplicity

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:11:10 EDT

Doc,
If I'm guilty of some of the things you mentioned, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized.
But I did say something about Brian's argument and I wasn't just calling him irrational. I made the point of the hypocritical statements he was making in hopes to enlighten him on what Eric was trying to say. I wasn't trying to harp on anyone's style of argument, I was simply trying to open up people's minds.
Regardless, to further Eric's statements, I believe the biological argument is not so much about diminishing population but rather about, yes, reproduction and the matter that the human body is designed for heterosexuality (penetration, body fluids, reproduction). It is what is "natural" and what is "natural" is the norm. Also, the psychology of humans has always been geered towards the survival of the species (attractive=large hips=good child-bearing=survival of the species). Yes I realized I used a sexual thing to point out the psychology, but even "queers" recognize an underlying attractiveness to any gender and that general attractiveness is based upon the underlying belief in the survival of the species.
Ah but then isn't the survival of the species also dependent on health? And isn't the maintenance of happiness important to one's health? "Queers" wouldn't be happy being forced to live heterosexual lives. And thus based on survival of the species belief, they should seek what makes them happy.
In the end it is not so much that the human population will die off because of homosexuality. It is the belief in what is designed by nature (what is "natural") and what isn't ("unnatural"). People have a tendency to fear and not understand the "unnatural." I am not giving excuses for persecution of homosexuality (I fully support homosexuality), but I can understand the feelings of certain individuals who are against homosexuality (of course I don't agree with people who are so extreme as to gay-bash or anything that like).
It is the matter that some people are so blindly self-righteous that they can't understand others' points of views that scares me. In other words, just like people who are against homosexuality should put themselves in the shoes of a homosexual, the other way around works too.

Comment by Doctor Slack

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:02:35 EDT

I agree with Natalie that "recruitment" to various forms of sexuality is a very, very Bad Idea. But in fairness to Eric, he is now clear that he's not proposing and wouldn't propose any such thing. (At least, he agrees with Brian's statement, which seems to me to preclude any such thing.) So just to chew over Eric's comment about reproduction... though I can understand how this point seems intuitively reasonable to many people, I also agree w/ Natalie on this one. The only way same sex relationships could stand a chance of genuinely interfering with reproduction is if it were possible not only for such relationships to become a social norm, but also to eliminate the parental instincts of same sex couples. I see both conjectures as being so highly improbable that they can be safely dismissed. If I'm understanding rightly, Natalie's point -- and it's an important one -- is that queerness is natural, every bit as much as heterosexuality. That's because sex is not a purely reproductive behaviour in primates, and we're primates. To say this is not to advocate that either hetero- or homo-sexuality be championed as a single "natural" standard, but simply to recognize that there's no necessary conflict between them.

Comment by Steve Barger

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:59:00 EDT

I hate homophobia-but love the homophobe. Do I have the civil right to privately, on my own property, practice racial discrimination or discrimination against homosexuals? Can I justifiably refuse to rent my house to a black or gay (or Jewish or Muslim) person? Whose rights are actually being violated, by such private discrimination? It is my concern that talk about the equality of rights for gays and lesbians blurs the distinction between government-sponsored action, and private action. Thus: Why can't the Boy Scouts of America, a private group, choose to discriminate against gays? Let's hate homophobia, but love the homophobe. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I will venture to say, is an example that gay rights supporters should emulate: He didn't refer to the United States as "AmeriKKKa". You felt uplifted by Dr. King. He appealed to our better natures. Yet he is the major figure that is responsible for the virtual end of racism in America, today! (Excepting, of course, private, non-governmental discrimination, which is the natural right of any bigot, in a Libertarian society). Let the gay rights movement in America offer us an inspiring leader like Dr. King, to appeal to our better natures-never for once allowing us to forget that the principle of equality of rights under the Law most emphatically applies to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals; while at the same time, hating the homophobia, but loving the homophobe. Steven Barger