FAO: Gays and Lesbians!

OOHHH CATFIGHT!

Ouch, bitch. Do I look like I need to pay? No indizzle.

You posted in another thread you were upset with all the "Bible Bashing".

You also apparently have a standard to what people need to be forcibly changed from being Gay to being Straight.

Your post stinks of something, and it ain't honesty.

I don't think the question is that off the wall, although the manner in which it is asked is rather inflamatory. Its probably only a matter of time before a specific gene is found which determines sexual orientation.

If so, it will raise a number of interesting questions and may turn the current debates on their head. Currently, the religious right seems to argue that being gay is somehow a choice. What they fail to realize is being gay or straight is based on which gender you are attracted to, it need not match your actions. A gay person may have straight sex and vice versa without changing their gayness/straightness.

The religious right will also have to address the fact that if it is a gene, it was no doubt created by god, therefore "curing" any gayness would be an affront to god, and anyone who tries to cure gayness risks being smited.

But from an evolutionary standpoint, its reasonable to assume that sexual attraction evolved to help propagate the species, and if there is such a gene, gayness is probably a less desirable trait from an evolutionary basis.

Ultimately though, people are who they are, and if someone is gay or straight, I see no reason why anyone should view either side as being needed to be cured.

I think a better question would perhaps be is that if such a gene is found, would anybody, either gay or straight, decide to have their orientation changed, and if so, why? I know I wouldn't choose that for myself.

Edit to clarify.

Hold the phone. You're talking about the same people who are anti-Abortion and pro-Parental Responsibility until their white daughters get knocked up out of wedlock by a black guy, then it's off to the Clinic or the Girl's Home for them. They'll find a way to ensure that the "cure" is seen as "a gift from God" and no doubt will be discovered by a "Christian Scientist".

Homosexuality may also be an adaptation. We're overpopulated, and the gender capable of bearing offspring outnumbers the one that seeds them roughly 2.5:1 , so I submit homosexuality on the rise being a form of population control.

I said they would have to address the fact. I didnt assume that in doing so that logic, intelligence or any sense of responsiblity would be used. .

Uhm... I like having sex with trees. Is there a cure for that?

I've heard that theory before and I don't buy it.

It would be interesting to see statistics of homosexuality in heavily crowded areas verses less dense areas, but most of those would have other mitigating circumstances - cultural bias, etc.

Geneticly engineer a species of flesh-eating termites.

The devil put it there to test us. QED
It wouldn't take them long to rationalize it.


Not necessarily. The shotgun approach (lots of offspring) works in some situations, especially if childhood mortality is high. However, in a highly complex world success of an offspring can also depend on the amount of resources dedicated. In which case fewer offspring offer a higher chance of success.

A child-bearing sibling of a homosexual shares some genetic information with the homosexual incluidng possibly an unexpress homosexual predisposition gene. If the homosexual person contributes resources to the development of the child he/she gains propagation, at least in part, of his/her genetic material. If this results in a differential success rate for reproduction, then a homosexual gene could be a favorable genetic selection.

In this way, homosexuality could be more desireable from an evolutionary basis.


What about genetic screening of a fetus. Would people abort if they knew their child would be pre-disposed to homosexuality?

No argument there.




Now that is something I never thought of, very interesting and I need to think this one through.





Sad to say, but I bet the answer is yes for some.

Eventually we will have the technology to screen for most traits and if being gay/straight is controlled by a gene, the question is what will we do with that ability.

Trees give you a woody?

That's a very mature attitude.

One of my biggest problems with the gay community (not the state of gayness itself) is the attitude that "if I'm queer, I have to act like a queen". It's not just that these individuals want to be nellies: I could deal with it if a guy just likes acting like a girl. It's the drama, the belligerence, and the attitude that goes with it.

It's somehow an issue of "who I have sex with determines who I am," which simply isn't true - for gay or straight people. At the moment, I'm celibate - for reasons of convenience and conscience, so what does that make me? Nothing?

(I'm not speaking from ingorance, here. When I got married, my Best Man was a gay man and his boyfriend was the Maid of Honor. I've watched a number of friends die of AIDS. Fortunately, I later got cured of being married. Best thing I ever did. )

There's a lot that I simply don't care about, or I'm willing to put up with (understanding that it's my own prejudice that bothers me, not necessarily the "wrongness" of someone else's attitude), but there's a certian over-dramatic part of the gay community that seems to think that they have to be all melodramatic and act even more "girly" than the girls. The only word that can describe them is "fairies". I don't meant to offend with the use of that word, but that's what these boys (err... girls? They called each other "girlfriend" are.

What disgusted me most was one time that I was in a coffee shop with my girlfriend and a friend of ours. We came outside to find 5 of these individuals beating up on a homeless woman. I'm here thinking "They want to be accepted for who they are, yet they're harrassing some old lady who just wants to be left alone?"

I started to intervene, but my friend and my girlfriend pulled me away. It's a good thing, since a police car was just turning the corner. I know it would have turned into "This big redneck just attacked us for no reason!" and I would have been the one in cuffs. (This was when the term "hate crime" was just starting to come en vogue.)

Later, I've come to believe that the belligerent fairy types are having problems with their own identities and actions, and are overcompensating as a form of defense mechanism. The boys in front of that coffee shop were so angry with their own lives (for whatever reason. Don't think I'm judging.) that they took it out on someone safe: a homeless woman.

There seems to be a large part of the gay community, but my no means not all of it, that is composed of damaged goods: people that have serious problems, completely unreleated to their gayness. I often find myself wondering how much of the melodrama and unhappiness surrounding these people is because of their fractured lives, and not from their status as "outcasts from society".

Maybe I'm over-examining it, and maybe I don't understand it as well as I think, being an outsider looking in, but I know all about being hurt, and I know all about the prejudices of society and peers that abuse you for stupid reasons. The one thing I am sure of is that many, many people could learn a lot from what you just said.

you know why divorces are so exspensive?






























they're worth it!

You think that's bad, you should see the drama of being lesbian and married. It's like a never-ending drama-thon.

You know the people that feel homosexuality needs a cure or is some kind of disease that is wrong are usually the religious fanatics. I dont think in the future that people will look for traits and abort if homosexuality is found. The younger generation is starting to question the church more and more over time. There is a passage in the bible even stating that the church will eventually fall. I find it kind of funny in the context when the religious fanatics speak out about homosexuality being so wrong because they are total hypocrits if they are taking the bible serious.

First off the bible tells you to basically respect how your born and that you shouldnt try to change yourself. Yeah but being born a homosexual you should change yourself to be straight. You can tell places like the U.K are ahead of the times and basically understand our own constitution better then we do with the aspect of church and state. They have legalized gay marriage in the last year and that is a big step forward in the right direction. The world needs to become more accepting in that aspect.

No llama schtupping!

Cause that's just wrong.

From: Dr Tardis

There seems to be a large part of the gay community, but my no means not all of it, that is composed of damaged goods: people that have serious problems, completely unreleated to their gayness. I often find myself wondering how much of the melodrama and unhappiness surrounding these people is because of their fractured lives, and not from their status as "outcasts from society".

I think that the "fractured lives" and their status are intertwined. It's not surprising (to me) that many of them have troubled lives when you consider what they are up against. Having your parents disown you would be bad enough, but combine that with the possibility of losing your job, losing your home, losing your children (or being denied adoption) and to top it off having your own government take on legislation to prevent you from forming a legally recognized relationship with your loved one is enough to make most people angry/disgusted/self-loathing. Conditions like that make it very hard for people to be proud of themselves.

It's unfortunate that some people cannot let the cycle of hate stop with them and instead make the decision to pass it on to someone else. I've witnessed it and I'm sure many others have. It's a sad reflection of society in general and the LGBT population in particular - you'd think they'd be much more tuned in about that being on the short end of the stick 99% of the time.

I really wonder if the LGBT population of our country were treated as everyone else is, would we see the same problems that plague the community? My guess: no, we wouldn't.

Anyway.. that's my $.02 as a gay man.

I really appreciate the honesty in your post. Those stereotypes have been what have made me almost go back in the closet many times.

I went to a planning meeting for Seattle gay pride in the mid 90's. They were arguing about what to call the parade because the name had gotten so long. At the time it was the "Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender..."etc. "parade", and they wanted to shorten the name.

So I said, "Why not call it the sexual openness parade, so anyone that feels sexually repressed can get involved."

a couple people quickly yelled out, "That's not what this is about! It's not just about sex!"

"Then what is it about?"

"Bigot, you're just a bigot!" and suddenly almost everyone in the group were chanting "Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!" until I left.

Another thing that happened to me was at an Act Up meeting in Seattle a year later--they were saying, "We want to make sure that people know that gay people are just people like everyone else." I thought that was cool. But then they started discussing what they wanted their outfits to look like for their political march on the capital in Olympia--pink tut-tu's, bare asses, fake hair piled 2 feet high, fairy wings, etc...

So I asked, "If we're trying to give the message that gay people are like everyone else, what's with the extreme outfits?"

"Because that's who we are!"

"Well, you're in a room full of people who aren't going to judge you, and you knew you were coming here. Why aren't you dressed that way now?"

"You're just a bigot!" and the rest start chanting, "Bigot! Bigot! Bigot! Get out! Bigot!" and they almost shoved me down a flight of stairs.


Then there was the initiative in Washington state that was similar to #9 in Oregon--a horridly anti-gay initiative funded by groups similar to Focus on the Family that would fully allow employers to blatantly discriminate against gay people, would remove all books from libraries that don't portray gay people as heathens, would allow insurance companies to not cover people if they were found to be gay, and a number of other horrible things, all disguised in the wording of "equal rights". There was a pro-initiative meeting that was happening in Tacoma that some friends of mine and I found out about, so we all dressed conservatively and went to the meeting. One by one, we raised our hands during the meeting and asked questions that would force the speaker to show what the initiative was really about. A couple times he said, "It's not about that!" and one of us said, "Yes it is, it says it right here in the actual initiative."

"But that's not what we meant!"

"yes, but that's what it would do."

We almost had most of the audience convinced that the initiative was a bad thing, and it was worded to make people think it was something else.

Suddenly Act Up and others burst through the door and start saying, in the most feminine voices possible from the men, "You're all just a bunch of bigots! Shame! Shame! Shame! Shame! Shame!" circling the entire room with slow large steps, each step accompanied by the word "Shame!" and by the time they left, everyone was supporting the initiative again and all the careful work we did was in vain.

Needless to say, I think that gay politics seems to be in la-la land, and I've become very jaded towards the stereotypical gay community. There's too much peer pressure (men to men) to act a certain way, to dress a certain way, and to believe a certain way. If you don't match those things, you are chastized in the gay community, and in some cases, are blatantly called names.

Typically, gay men are more judgmental about fat guys than straight women are about straight women. Fat men are looked at in the male gay community as scum of the earth. It's only been until recently that "bears" have become accepted, and that's only after it has become dominated by primarily very feminine men who just happen to either have beards and/or are hairy--being fat is still not very acceptable even in that sub-community, and if someone acts to masculine, they're looked at as "straight wannabes".

Lesbians, however, are completely the opposite. I wish tyipcal gay men were more like typical lesbians--not so focused on being physically perfect, accepting flaws, and just generally being more down to earth and accepting. It's been a rare occasion that I've met a lesbian that I didn't think was cool.

Fmeh, give this a listen. It's an audio-blog-type-thing by a guy named _2_ on that issue. It's quite good, IMO.

Warning, not all language is safe for work or close family

If I wanted to settle down, marry and raise children, yes, I would certainly consider both she and I taking this hypothetical pill.

But, I'm quite content as a bachelor, and I don't want kids.

So no.


Sign me up for the next generation pill that makes women more attractive WITHOUT making men undesirable, and I'm there.

Thankfully, I think we are starting to see less stereotypical gays appearing in TV and movies. Brokeback mountain gave us one picture of non-flamer gay men. I also think back to Billy Crystal's character on Soap. But the (to quote the OP "limpwristed" sterotypes still abound, Queer eye, pretty much any Robin Williams impersionation of gays (watching The Birdcage made me want to puke). Some gay men are like that, and I'm fine with it. I wouldn't go so far in their condemnation as the guy in Reitsuki's link. I know that some people like the attention, there are straight people who do the same thing, yet not everyone thinks that all straight people are like that.

Where do you draw the line on "flaunting it too much"? If I go out in public wearing a dress, is that too far?

When does "trying to blend" turn into "hiding it"?

"if it wasn't for the sex, I could be gay. Hell then your just hanging with your buddies."

Bill Engval