|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from idiots anonymous
Monday, January 15, 2007 - 12:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
While the above article makes for an interesting read, the argument hinges on the God who is almighty to the Jewish people and the father of the Christians' saviour to be a real and factual character, instead of a figment of human's imagination and a weapon of mass distraction for the mentally feeble.
If God did exist and create the world and everything in it, you would think he wouldn't give a shit who fucked whom and in which orifice. Homosexuality is indeed genetic, and it's no person's place to pass judgement on whether or not it should be considered a 'sin' or not.
(reply to this comment)
|  From Fish
Tuesday, January 16, 2007, 15:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
"idiots anonymous" is indeed a good choice, as your post is both. "Homosexuality is indeed genetic, and it's no person's place to pass judgement on whether or not it should be considered a 'sin' or not".
Ill skip over the excessive use of "not", and focus on the idiocy of your position. You state that:
A. Homosexuality is genetic.
B. No one has the right to pass judgement on a genetic trait.
Statement "A" is IMO a gross oversimplification. While some people may be more inclined to certain behaviour, due to their genetic makeup, it hardly follows that such behaviour "is genetic".
If the validity of statement "A" is questionable, then "B" is simply bizarre. One could easily make an argument that all human behaviour is "genetic". From this it would follow that no one is responsible for any of their actions, which is an untenable position. It doesn't matter if one is genetically inclined to substance abuse, one will still go to jail.
A more realistic view IMO is this:
A. Some people are more predisposed than others to have gay tendencies
B. Who cares?(reply to this comment) |
| | From idiots anonymous
Tuesday, January 16, 2007, 22:21
  (Agree/Disagree?)
Except that homosexuality is a predisposed sexual preference, not a 'behavior' that can be reversed through conditioning exercises or exorcisms of some nature. Behavior isn't genetic. Instinct is something you're born with, behavior is something you pick up, or trained to do be it consciously or otherwise.
Trying to say all human behavior is genetic is pathetic.
I said that no one had the right to pass judgment on a genetic trait, such as let's say being left-handed. If you can justify declaring being a lefty as good or bad, then go do the same for being gay. If it hasn't yet been proven scientifically that being gay is beyond all shadow of a doubt genetic, than my original statement is hearsay at worst. Comparing homosexuality to substance abuse is dense and tactless.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 07:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
We humans have a natural tendency to try to make everything fit into neat, clearly defined categories, and anything that falls outside of those categories is ostracized and debased.
While you are correct in stating that homosexuality is not genetic (or, if it is, science has yet to offer empirical evidence to support that hypothesis) the human body itself does not have a clearly defined line when it comes to sexual preference and, as the Kinsey Scale demonstrates, that preference is certainly not polarized.
Variances in sexual preference are as natural as variances in preference of food, color or clothing styles. These and many other preferences can be largely influenced by environment (e.g. an African may prefer cassava to pasta), and only become an issue when they threaten to destabilize socially established boundaries (e.g. a preference for the taste of human flesh over beef).
In the case of homosexuality, the only boundary being threatened is one established by contemporary religions. From a purely social perspective, same-sex relationships pose no threat.
Before labeling a post you disagree with as being "idiotic", why not take a moment to inform yourself? Did you know, for instance, that many homosexuals are equally opposed to the idea of their sexual preference being genetically predisposed?
There's plenty of material out there from a wide range of perspectives. Talking to a few gay people to get their perspective on it might help, too.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from AnnaH
Monday, January 15, 2007 - 09:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the examples of David and Naomi are pretty shoddy to present homosexuality in the bible. They pretext the examples by saying that it's about homosexual love, not sexual preference. Aren't homosexuality and heterosexuality primarily concerned with sexual preference? Why should we care whether or not they were of the same gender?
Both those examples show a love that transcends physical love, which I would regard as the most primitive form of love. In the quote by David, I read "passing that of women" as sexual love. He loves Jonathan differently and more deeply than any woman, surpassing previous societal categories of whom may love whom.
The same goes for Naomi and Ruth. To translate their love into something sexual is crude and cheapens their sentiments. True love isn't concerned with roles, gender, or sex.
(reply to this comment)
| from Wolf
Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 13:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
The first thing that came to mind when glancing over this article is: do gay men actually have absolutely no desire to screw a woman? i.e., if a hot naked woman grabbed you, would you not even get a hard on? Any gay men visit this site who could answer my question?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From .....
Tuesday, January 16, 2007, 16:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
This comment reaks of bigotry and stupidity. Hypothetically, if you were blindfolded and fondled, you'd be turned on, or not, depending on how the fondling felt, not on who was doing the groping. It is your predisposed position on gays that makes you so sure you'd be 'disgusted' if a gay man tries to fondle you. I'm a straight man who has never been fondled by another man, however, I have been hit on many a time and it has never once bothered me. I was actually flattered that I was found attractive by another individual of my species.
By the same token, you're clearly homophobic and don't quite grasp the notion of being fondled. Flip the script for a second. If a lesbian woman is fondled by a man, is she disgusted? Or is she just pissed that a total stranger is grabbing at her 'bits and pieces'? I have to believe it's the latter! It is after all, skin to skin or skin to clothing contact and the gender of the toucher doesn't have any impact on the touchee unless the touched is predisposed to dislike the intimate physical contact from the person.
If I was randomly groped by a woman I didn't know, didn't like, or wasn't attracted to, I'd have pretty much the same reaction that I would if a gay man groped me: "who the fuck are you and why the fuck are you touching me?" would be what came out of my mouth on impulse. If I liked it, turned around and if I saw a gay guy, or ugly/old woman, I'd be like thanks, but I'm not interested so kindly fuck off!(reply to this comment) |
| | From ice daemon
Monday, January 15, 2007, 15:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
I totally agree on the subject....as a gay female myself, I'm definetly more attracted to women. i would say i'm "predominantly lesbian"...girls totally turn me on....whereas i just like hanging out and having fun with guys...i would never be interested in a meaningful/emotional relationship with a male. however that doesn't mean i'm apposed to sexual contact of the opposite race....seriously bring it on!! bt people who are so homophobic of gays and lesbians should jump up their own asses and die!! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From gayblade
Friday, June 10, 2005, 05:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
The disgust hets feel at the thought of a pass from a gay man is an attitude that people learn growing up and it is reinforced by the norms and values of a heterosexist society. I cannot speak for all gay men, but many do not feel disgust at the thought of a sexy woman's proposition--just indifference and lack of interest. Many gays have had sex with women, but they find males more attractive and stimulating. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From SrtaightRazor
Friday, June 10, 2005, 09:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
There's a crucial difference between a pass and a grab. I was at a bar, and I had no problem with the gay man trying to make conversation with me, until he started trying to fondle my hair.
There are many kinds of straight people, and there are many kinds of gays. I'm the kind of straight guy who hates the fake effeminate slime-speak of some little querios. What is it with that? You sucked your first dick and became Jack 2000 in your head? For fucks sake BE GAY, but what is the point of anatgonizing someone because the're not? On the other hand, I have a couple of friends who's gay leanings were a surprise to me when I learned of them. They know I'm straight, and we respect each other as people.
Feeling repelled at a gay advance is hopefully a situation one would encounter strictly as a grown up. I'm not so sure that your statement is based in sound science, it would be a very suspect "laboratory" that studied the effects of homosexual pickups on little boys. To make a generalization as to how straight men acquire their repellent feelings toward a gay advance is as ridiculous as a straight man trying to explain why all gays became that way. (Some idiots try anyway, most live in Alabama).
There are many examples of society. How do you compare the society of NY city to that of Shitville texas? You don't. What do they have in common? Not much, they hardly use the same language. I would think that a gay man would tend to have an easier time coming out in NY than TX. The rift between red and blue states runs a lot deeper than who they happen to vote for come election time. So where exactly is this "heterosexist" society you speak of? Surely you can't mean the whole of the U.S. And where, pray tell, is the "homosexist" society? Just as black has it's counterpart in white, Straightness has it's own in homosexuality. Since there is a heterosexist society, surely there must be a homosexist one hanging around somewhere.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From roughneck
Friday, June 10, 2005, 09:19
 (Agree/Disagree?)
"Dude, that's a quick recipe for an ass-whoopin."
Just make sure your personal definition of "whoopin" is the same as his first, eh? I imagine that if a (hot, naked, aroused, insert adjective here) man grabbed you in the, ahem, bathing suit region, (making) ass-whoopie might be just what he had in mind. :D(reply to this comment) |
| | from Haunted
Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 07:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Although I don't subscribe to the doctrines of Christianity, I do respect the Bible for its historical and literary value as a history of and by the Jewish people for one. Added to that fact, I'm sure all of us are more than familiar with the references in the above text. This has to be one of the most interesting articles I have read in a while. Thanks for sharing this.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from shades of gray!
Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 06:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
IMO, the need to have demons and enemies to fight against is the logic underlying the Christian Right's position on homosexuality. Before the advent of gay rights movement in the 70s and early 80s, the great boogey-man was the godless communists. At the turn of the century, it was women's rights. Since 2001, Islamicists have become a new source of demonization. Point is, there is always an "us" whose sense of security is dependent in some measure on identification and villification of an anti-christ "them." TFI uses the logic of tribalism all the time. Tribalism addresses a very deep & primitive insecurity in our monkey-minds. Higher education is a major way out of a tribal mentality.
(reply to this comment)
| from Androgyne
Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 22:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Interesting article. The religious right is not going to be deterred by all their inconsistencies.
Two verses that tend to silence them and stick with them are Matthew 19:12 "Some are born eunuch from their mother's womb...", or more contemporaneously translated, "Some are born queer from their mother's womb..." I always point out that "Jesus said..."
Then in Luke 17:34 Jesus said, "I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed." Jesus said nothing about it being an abomination.
This follows after Jesus talking about Sodom, and describes activities that are basically economic. No mention of sexual activity in Sodom by Jesus, unless it can be inferred from the word "Likewise..." referencing the days of Noah.
Then there are several verses in the gospel of John, where it refers to John as the "one whom Jesus loved." Twice he is referred to as the one who laid upon Jesus's bosom.
Lastly, there's the somewhat humorous episode of Peter getting naked in front of John and apparently in front of five other disciples in the 21st chapter of John. Apparently that bothered no one until John said "it's the Lord!" and Peter jumps overboard.
(reply to this comment)
| From Wolf
Thursday, June 09, 2005, 13:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have nothing against gays, but I think you're reading too much into these Bible quotations. First of all, I don't know what makes you think that "eunuch" means "gay", and second of all, I think hetrosexual men usually had a more healthy attitude about natural non-sexual affinity between males in those days. It takes a stretch of the imagination to read "gay" into these verses -- even the one about two men lying in bed. Homophobic men may be squeamish about "lying in bed" with no sexual activity these days, but I think they had less inhibitions back then. If you did end up making out with another guy, you didn't all of a sudden get labelled "homosexual" -- in many cultures bisexuality was the norm for both sexes. And men seeing each other naked -- give me a break. That happens everywhere, and nobody starts thinking "gay". (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Leftie
Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 05:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Somehow I doubt that even the most conservative among us takes that much promting to understand the the Christian right is probably wrong on homosexuality - among other things. Good article, I just think you're preaching to the converted.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]